"There are no shortcuts: Those who want a genuine counterterrorism policy must work to remove the Left and the multiculturalists from government." — Daniel Pipes

Menu

Think he’d do it? And would the Democrats approve?

Our good friend Perry’s latest mantra is that we have a “dysfunctional Congress,” which means, well, I don’t know what it means.¹ But one wonders what Perry would say if Congress declines to pass an increase in the statutory debt limit, and President Obama simply ignores the ceiling and keeps borrowing anyway. From Allahpundit:

Yeah, why not? That’s perfectly in keeping with Obama’s M.O. when the legislature gets in his way. Can’t get Congress to move on cap and trade? Make the EPA do something. Don’t want to beg Congress to authorize war in Libya? Send in the Air Force and forget about it.

Annoyed that Congress has refused to raise the debt ceiling because you can’t reach a deal on deficit reduction? Just keep selling Treasury securities and apply the proceeds to paying interest on the debt, then dare the House and Senate to do something about it.

There’s much more at the link, including an argument from The New Republic that the debt limit itself is inherently unconstitutional:

But even if standing could be established and the Obama administration gets taken to court, some legal experts note that an additional argument of surprising strength could be made: The government cannot legally default on its debts. Former Reagan official and maverick conservative budget wonk Bruce Bartlett has suggested as much by invoking Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” Although there has been little litigation or discussion of this section, it could be read to imply an absolute firewall against statutory limits on paying or devaluing the debt.

Allahpundit then added:

Now there’s a campaign platform I’d like to see in time for the 2012 election: “The Constitution lets me run up as much debt as I want and there’s nothing your representatives can do to stop me.”

Now, the obvious counter is that the Constitution puts paying our past, legally-incurred obligations ahead of other spending, but how do you determine what gets cut? The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was held to be unconstitutional in Clinton v City of New York (524 U.S. 417 (1998)), so the selection of non-debt-repayment items to be deleted would not be solely up to President Obama, and if the Congress couldn’t then agree on what already-appropriated items were to be sequestered, then each appropriated item would have just as much of an obligation to be spent as any other.

So, if the Congress does what the people who elected it to do, which is not borrow more money, and declines to raise the debt ceiling, and President Obama goes ahead and takes unilateral action and exceeds the statutory debt limit anyway, will Perry start complaining about “Dictator Obama,” or will he continue the “dysfunctional Congress” meme, and tell us that the President simply had to do what he did?
_________________________
¹ – Whatever he means, he has used “dysfunctional Congress” enough times in the past two days for me to wonder if that was the latest DNC talking point he was e-mailed.

229 Comments

During a passionate speech today on the House floor, Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)(my comment, but he’s hyper dem partisan) delivered some surprising remarks while pushing for the House to vote for a measure stripping funding from the war in Libya. According to him, Obama is starting to resemble an “absolute monarch.”

“We have been sliding for 70 years to a situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about whether to go to war or not, and the president is becoming an absolute monarch,” he said. “And we must put a stop to that right now, if we don’t want to become an empire instead of a republic.”
“I think that the nation’s credibility, that is to say its promise to go to war as backed by the president, not by the Congress, ought to be damaged,” he added.

“And if foreign countries learn that they cannot depend on American military intervention unless Congress is aboard for the ride, good. That’s a good thing.”

Perry’s Dysfunctional Congress only means the Reps have the House. Functioning fine by me. Perry just wants the Debt Ceiling to be the Stratosphere. To Perry, a functional member of Congress Spends, Spends, Spends. And taxes the rich at 200%. Actually, he sounds like everything the rich have, confiscate like a good little Socialist. (an add)

Perry’s Dysfunctional Congress only means the Reps have the House. Functioning fine by me.

Because you don’t work, and your SS is grandfathered in?

What on earth makes you think that once they cut it back on those younger than you, they won’t be coming after your age-group next under the politically popular mantra of “spreading the load”? You think you have votes; what happens when they start getting votes by pointing the finger at you and appealing to the mean, self-centered Republican base?

Which of course they don’t. Nevertheless, I don’t think you have come to terms with what some Repubs wish to do, as evidenced in the Ryan plan, Yorkshire. Simply put, they wish to put the burden on the middle and the poor. If they get their way, your children will not have Medicare coverage in their senior years like you have, and their SS will be privatized, meaning that their benefits will be at the whim of Wall Street shenanigans. Is this what you want for them? And like PiaToR just said, who says that Repubs, if they take power back, won’t come after you too.

Please tell me Yorkshire, what is wrong with sharing the burden? Ryan’s plan does not do so! Is this what YOU want?

“And we must put a stop to that right now, if we don’t want to become an empire instead of a republic.”

I think Nadler is correct here. The President must straighten this out by going to Congress to get their approval, even now after the fact. In the future, it must be before the fact, and it is on Congress to act quickly and judiciously. A dysfunctional Congress doesn’t help the situation either!

and their SS will be privatized, meaning that their benefits will be at the whim of Wall Street shenanigans.

As I understand it, most plans would make participation in the stock market optional. You could still stick with regular SS if you were risk averse. That was how the Bush plan, which you Dems demagogued to death, was designed.

what happens when they start getting votes by pointing the finger at you and appealing to the mean, self-centered Republican base?

Sorry, but it’s the Democrat base that’s always looking for more free stuff for the government, so its they who are mean and self centered. THe GOP base (translation: the TEa Party) simply wants to have the government function as the Founders intended.

“As I understand it, most plans would make participation in the stock market optional. You could still stick with regular SS if you were risk averse. That was how the Bush plan, which you Dems demagogued to death, was designed.”

The Bush approach was a misunderstanding of Social Security, which is to provide a minimal safety net. By minimal, there is not even enough to live on, but there is enough to approach being able to survive. If the Bush plan had been passed, how would we respond to seniors whose private investments were wiped out by a stock market or bank crash? Would we just let them die in the streets? That is why the privatization plan never flew. It had nothing to do with demagoging, as you claim.

“Sorry, but it’s the Democrat base that’s always looking for more free stuff for the government, so its they who are mean and self centered. THe GOP base (translation: the TEa Party) simply wants to have the government function as the Founders intended.”

Sure, and without SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, to whom would these TEA Partiers turn when desperate and in need? Now be honest, Eric!

The Bush approach was a misunderstanding of Social Security, which is to provide a minimal safety net. By minimal, there is not even enough to live on, but there is enough to approach being able to survive. If the Bush plan had been passed, how would we respond to seniors whose private investments were wiped out by a stock market or bank crash?

That’s why the plan was optional, you dumbass. Besides, as I recall, the plan was to have people’s SS savings put in diversified accounts, so that the crash of any one stock wouldn’t wipe out their savings.

PS You said SS is only meant as a supplement, meaning people are still expected to provide most of their retirement out of private accounts.

Sure, and without SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, to whom would these TEA Partiers turn when desperate and in need? Now be honest, Eric!

That confirms my point that you libs condescendingly see people as helpless, and who have to be dependent on the government to survive. I mean, what did people do before Big Government? They relied on their friends, families, communities, and churches for help. And of course since the government wasn’t robbing them blind of their tax money, they probably wouldn’t have needed that help in the first place.

The Bush approach was a misunderstanding of Social Security, which is to provide a minimal safety net. By minimal, there is not even enough to live on, but there is enough to approach being able to survive. If the Bush plan had been passed, how would we respond to seniors whose private investments were wiped out by a stock market or bank crash?

That’s why the plan was optional, you dumbass. Besides, as I recall, the plan was to have people’s SS savings put in diversified accounts, so that the crash of any one stock wouldn’t wipe out their savings.

PS You said SS is only meant as a supplement, meaning people are still expected to provide most of their retirement out of private accounts.

Nothing you said refutes my points, plus, you didn’t bother answering my question. Thus, you are not discussing, Eric, you are talking to yourself. Carry on!

“That confirms my point that you libs condescendingly see people as helpless, and who have to be dependent on the government to survive. I mean, what did people do before Big Government? They relied on their friends, families, communities, and churches for help. And of course since the government wasn’t robbing them blind of their tax money, they probably wouldn’t have needed that help in the first place.”

Eric, you truly have no concept of the catastrophic health challenges that can suddenly hit a person/family, and become more probable events the older a person gets. There are lots like you in this regard. Also, you and your family are probably pretty healthy, and probably well insured through your employer, even more reason for you not to consider these health issue realities.

And before “Big Government”, health care costs were considerably less per capita, meaning that health insurance was also considerably less expensive.

Are you in favor of making paupers out of families who have been suddenly struck with catastrophic medical expenses at a time when they could not even afford health insurance?

Be glad that us “libs” want to be here to look after your needs should such an unforeseen catastrophic challenge suddenly strike you or your family.

This is certainly not seeing people as “helpless”, as per your assumption. It is a question of being prepared to furnish assistance under circumstances just described. You are demonstrably not in touch with these possibilities, as they are clearly outside of your thinking bubble.

I think Nadler is correct here. The President must straighten this out by going to Congress to get their approval, even now after the fact. In the future, it must be before the fact, and it is on Congress to act quickly and judiciously. A dysfunctional Congress doesn’t help the situation either!

And if the Congress chooses not to act, not to raise the debt ceiling? That, too, is a choice, and it happens to be the choice of the people who voted for the republicans.

Phoenician in a time of Romans says:
27 June 2011 at 00:10
Perry’s Dysfunctional Congress only means the Reps have the House. Functioning fine by me.

Because you don’t work, and your SS is grandfathered in?

What on earth makes you think that once they cut it back on those younger than you, they won’t be coming after your age-group next under the politically popular mantra of “spreading the load”? You think you have votes; what happens when they start getting votes by pointing the finger at you and appealing to the mean, self-centered Republican base?

Oh, I relized that years ago and invested outside the gummint. My finacial adviser is coming here Thursday. When you work for the Feds you know they say one thing and do another. It’s just that BO has accelerated that.

Perry:
Please tell me Yorkshire, what is wrong with sharing the burden?

I’ll go back to a Clintonism, depends on what “sharing the burden” means. If it means the lower 60% of taxpayer pay no taxes, but get more more back when they Income Taxes, NO. If it means taxing people like PA does, I can go for that since all pay something. If you’re thinking the rich have a higher burden of taxes as they do now, NO.

Be glad that us “libs” want to be here to look after your needs should such an unforeseen catastrophic challenge suddenly strike you or your family.

Sorry, but I don’t need your patronizing attitude. Has it ever occurred to you that, in a free society, people are expected to take care of themselves, and that one should be proud to be self reliant and not dependent on the government? But your approach is to get as many people hooked in the government as possible, indeed, that is the primary goal of your politics.

Has it ever occurred to you that, in a free society, people are expected to take care of themselves, and that one should be proud to be self reliant and not dependent on the government?

Has it occurred to you that people tried that, and got tired of the elderly eating dogfood and people begging in the streets?

Do feel free to go tell the millions of Americans aged over 50 who just had their retirement savings nearly wiped out by financial crises that all they need to do is “get self reliant”. Or move to Somalia.

The US Constitution says funding bills originate in the House of Representatives. If the debt ceiling bill originated in the House of Representatives, it is wholly Constitutional.

And to claim we’re threatening to trash the US credit rating is a blatant falsehood. The US government can pay its debt responsibilities and its National Defense responsibilities from the revenue stream as it now stands.

“Can” doesn’t mean “will,” Hitchcock. Why don’t you stop calling me a liar just because I say things that don’t buttress your imaginary world where Republicans have drafted and proposed a plan to stop paying Medicare, SS, and soldier’s pay so it can pay interest on the debt?

Just because you don’t want people to realize you guys are holding the US economy over the fire doesn’t mean I have to play along.

Regarding Constitutionality, I might add that the kind of spending we’re talking about here consists of pre-existing commitments. We’re certainly not adding any significant new spending. Just because spending originates in the House doesn’t mean it gets to violate the Fourteenth Amendment, does it?

Again, I’m not committed to saying that it does violate the Fourteenth Amendment, but that excuse, Hitchcock, officially blows.

Has it occurred to you that people tried that, and got tired of the elderly eating dogfood and people begging in the streets?

Funny how the country got on just fine for most of its existence without people having to rely on the government, and you saw very little begging. As I said elsewhere, if people needed help, they relied on friends, family, religious and civic organizations and that system worked fine. What you are basically saying is people can’t handle freedom, and must then become dependent on the government. What a depressing point of view!

Do feel free to go tell the millions of Americans aged over 50 who just had their retirement savings nearly wiped out by financial crises that all they need to do is “get self reliant”. Or move to Somalia

The stock market is now up to about 12,000. Which makes your claim a lie.

“The stock market is now up to about 12,000. Which makes your claim a lie.”

You are assuming that having been wiped out that these folks stayed in the market, and/or had the wherewithal to get back in. Have your any data to show to back up you assumption?

And btw, Eric, have you been able to give Obama any credit for the stock market recovery? Without the bailout, the stimulus, and the loans to struggling businesses like the car companies, I contend that the stock market and economy would be in much worse shape.

BS, Eric! Is that the best you have. Show me where I ever called you a terrorist, yet I couldn’t disagree with you more re most of your unsubstantiated statements.

1. You know exactly what I’m talking about, so quit playing stupid.

2. My “Unsubstantiated statements” are, like Dana’s and Hoagie’s, pro-freedom. You don’t need a stupid “Citation” to prove that freedom is good. But you left wingers hate freedom. You want to use the power of big government to tear it down. I think of Pho’s quote above. He is basically saying that freedom leads to eating dog food. He is saying that people can’t handle freedom. Is it any wonder that decent people everywhere reject this evil agenda?

“You don’t need a stupid “Citation” to prove that freedom is good. But you left wingers hate freedom.”

Eric, were do you get this crazy stuff from. Your entire statement is unsubstantiated garbage gleaned from your ideological mythology.

I can only speak conclusively about myself: You are totally wrong!

My life experiences have taught me that we need oversight and regulation to prevent unbridled greed from becoming too powerful. All you need do is refer to the 2001-2009 time period to see the latest demonstration of unbridled greed run rampant. If you cannot see that, you have typically shut your eyes and ears, and held your nose!

My life experiences have taught me that we need oversight and regulation to prevent unbridled greed from becoming too powerful

In short, in your view, people can’t be trusted with freedom because they are basically evil. That is similar to Pho’s statement that people can’t handle freedom because they’ll end up eating dog food. Either way, the message is people can’t handle freedom, which is the left wing mantra, and which proves my point to be valid.

All you need do is refer to the 2001-2009 time period to see the latest demonstration of unbridled greed run rampant.

1. The economy under Bush only went south in the last few months of his presidency. The rest of his eight years it was reasonably good. Thus more false left wing propaganda from you.

2. The primary cause of the economic collapse was bad real estate loans, not “Unbridled greed”. And, as has been pointed out before, the government played a large role in that.

“In short, in your view, people can’t be trusted with freedom because they are basically evil.”

Eric, stop putting words in my mouth and making assumptions.

I do think that all of us are basically self-centered, which can result in unfettered greed in some. Unfettered greed in powerful people is a daunting challenge, which is exactly why we need governmental oversight and appropriate regulation. [Added: ..., and uncontrolled, off budget spending.]

1. False. The economy under Bush went south because of large deficits produced by tax cuts for the wealthy and Wall Street unregulated and out of control.

2. False. Bad real estate loans were generated by unscroupulus bankers and packaged into worthless packages sold on the world market while the sellers bet against their buyers. The government played a very minor roll in this.

Eric, your misinformation is so vast, that you should concern yourself with your news inputs and make corrections. You are way too easy!!!

Heh, that’s another piece of GOP dogma that we don’t hear much anymore. Wall Street has recovered…why hasn’t Main Street? That’s how it’s supposed to work, right?

In 2010, the answer given was Uncertainty. Well, sure Wall Street was sitting on piles of cash, the top 1% had bounced back wonderfully, investment would have been so easy, except, business wasn’t certain about the future, so it was scared to invest! (Reality: No demand, so why would anybody build a factory?)

Now it’s 2011 and suddenly we’re in a crisis with Republicans threatening to sink the economy over raising the debt ceiling.

Who’s feeling certain now?

Republicans are going to have to do a little bit better in 2012 than, “Times are bad, Obama is president, therefore times are bad because Obama is president.” Oh, and, “Hey, ignore those three years of Republican economic sabotage,” (upgrade to four closer to the election, as I’m sure even getting past this current crisis won’t change them much).

Anyway, still waiting for Dana to hand down a verdict on the constitutionality of the debt ceiling.

In a May post here at Free exchange, a colleague wrote that in the event of a temporary breach of the limit, the government would likely opt for immediate, massive cuts in order to prevent an outright default. Quite apart from the financial market implications, that would represent a hugely contractionary force on the economy, probably sufficient to send it back into recession.

It’s not like this is some other acceptable scenario. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be another act of economic sabotage by Republicans, but the worst one yet.

It amazes me no end, that the very people whose lives are most affected first by uncertainty, and finally by a failure to raise the debt ceiling, at least some of them are the ones who are defending the hostage holding presently being practiced by the Republicans in Congress.

And they will tell you that they are rational, logical,and reasoned thinkers. The self-delusion is almost beyond belief, but there it is!!!

“So, if the Congress does what the people who elected it to do, which is not borrow more money, and declines to raise the debt ceiling, and President Obama goes ahead and takes unilateral action and exceeds the statutory debt limit anyway, will Perry start complaining about “Dictator Obama,” or will he continue the “dysfunctional Congress” meme, and tell us that the President simply had to do what he did?”

First of all, Dana, I have to remind you that the people not only elected a Repub majority House, but before that they also elected a Dem President and a Dem majority Senate. Now all of a sudden you are giving credence to majorities, when your party has done the best they could to deny majority rule in the Senate. Therefore, I find your now revised claims about the majority having spoken to be disingenuous, to say the least!

Secondly, if the Repubs continue their hostage game with the debt ceiling issue, and follow it to the logical conclusion having not had every one of their demands met, they will then have to place Obama in a box where he might well have to play dictator to save the country from a catastrophic default generated by Republicans. To save the country, Obama will be foreclosing a second term.

Is this the outcome for which you wish, Dana? I call it taking a huge risk by the radical wing of the Republican party.

And do you know what? They are insane enough to do this, because the vast resources of the Republican party funders will be able easily to weather any storm, having their holdings overseas in a very secure place. This is exactly what people of this ilk do.

For example, consider where the middle east dictators had their money stashed – not in their own countries. And these powerful Repubs have the earthy people like Dana on their side, by din of misinformation and blind faith ideological beliefs. They are exactly like religious leaders, and certain people too easily fall for their evangelism.

1. False. The economy under Bush went south because of large deficits produced by tax cuts for the wealthy and Wall Street unregulated and out of control.

Wrong. The deficits under Bush were quite modest compared to those under Obama. And there’s no evidence that Wall Street was any more “Out of control” than, say, during the 90′s when you all were bragging about all the Wall Street greed,/strike> success under Clinton.

Why would “Unscrupulous” bankers make so many bad loans when they would cause them to lose, not make, money? You’re always blaming everything on “Greed”, yet it doesn’t take greed to lose money, which is exactly what happened with those loans.

Wrong. The deficits under Bush were quite modest compared to those under Obama. And there’s no evidence that Wall Street was any more “Out of control” than, say, during the 90?s when you all were bragging about all the Wall Street greed success under Clinton.

I do think that all of us are basically self-centered, which can result in unfettered greed in some. Unfettered greed in powerful people is a daunting challenge, which is exactly why we need governmental oversight and appropriate regulation.

Well, I disagree with your cynical view about people, indeed, the Left seems to be based on cynicism (witness Pho). I agree with the Founders, who thought that, if given a chance at freedom, people would be willing to do honest work and thus be able to keep the fruits of their labor. The Founders were generally optimists when it came to trusting the citizenry, but you left wingers are pessimists and assume that people can’t function as free citizens, but rather must rely on the government either to support them or else control them (for their own good, of course)

Why would “Unscrupulous” bankers make so many bad loans when they would cause them to lose, not make, money?

You know, you could always find out rather than arguing from your own ignorance.

Arguments along the lines of “I can’t imagine what a camel is good for, therefore they do not exist” are tedious when senile old relatives make them, let alone ignorant internet w1ngnuts. Try actually READING instead of assuming your own personal ignorance proves anything.

I mean, are we supposed to believe Eric does not know the difference between short term gain vs long term?

Or should we just believe he will just keep flapping his gums whether there’s anything to be said or not?

Anyway, I’m starting to wonder if the Tea Party folks are getting a bit afraid of this Fourteenth Amendment business. Hell, it’s not like they ever gave a rat’s arse about the Constitution anyway. It’s always just talk with them whenever the Constitution gets in their way.

They want to burn the country and blame Obama for it to gain power. Is it such a surprise that the Constitution
might slam the brakes on such a destructive mission?

Why would “Unscrupulous” bankers make so many bad loans when they would cause them to lose, not make, money? You’re always blaming everything on “Greed”, yet it doesn’t take greed to lose money, which is exactly what happened with those loans.

As usual, your ideology trumps your knowledge of business basics.

Let me add to PiaToR’s wise comment:

The reason for the bad loans by unscrupulous bankers is that they were betting that the rising housing market bubble would cover them by turning bad loans into good. Well the bubble broke. In the meantime, these unscrupulous bankers packaged this worthless paper and sold the packages worldwide, while surreptitiously betting against them, earning billions of dollars as we innocents watched our funded pensions and 401k’s melt before our eyes. Worst of all, to this day these con artists have gotten away with these crimes, as not one yet has been prosecuted!

And you didn’t know about this, Eric? No you did not, because you are very poorly informed indeed, yet try to pass yourself off as otherwise. Some of us know better!

I do think that all of us are basically self-centered, which can result in unfettered greed in some. Unfettered greed in powerful people is a daunting challenge, which is exactly why we need governmental oversight and appropriate regulation.

Well, I disagree with your cynical view about people, indeed, the Left seems to be based on cynicism (witness Pho). I agree with the Founders, who thought that, if given a chance at freedom, people would be willing to do honest work and thus be able to keep the fruits of their labor. The Founders were generally optimists when it came to trusting the citizenry, but you left wingers are pessimists and assume that people can’t function as free citizens, but rather must rely on the government either to support them or else control them (for their own good, of course)

Eric, please, please don’t ever, ever let historical facts get in the way of your fantasies!

Now I am no history buff, but I do know this: Many of the Founders were slave owners, women were not permitted to vote, and the Founders conceived of an electoral college to protect the powerful from the will of the people should the people get too much out of line with their voting.

I suppose that one could argue that such as it was then was acceptable in the context of their times, but to translate that into the fantastic garbage you just spewed out is simply unforgivable for a person who claims to know something but really does not!

1. False. The economy under Bush went south because of large deficits produced by tax cuts for the wealthy and Wall Street unregulated and out of control.

Wrong. The deficits under Bush were quite modest compared to those under Obama. And there’s no evidence that Wall Street was any more “Out of control” than, say, during the 90′s when you all were bragging about all the Wall Street greed,/strike> success under Clinton.

Now I am no history buff, but I do know this: Many of the Founders were slave owners, women were not permitted to vote, and the Founders conceived of an electoral college to protect the powerful from the will of the people should the people get too much out of line with their voting.

Citation please regarding the Electoral College.

It is quite obvious you’re not a history buff, Herr Fossil, for you, like way too many faux “progressives,” seek to impose 21st century values upon what were indeed very forward-thinking people. Though many owned slaves (an accepted practice back then, BTW), many spoke out against it and began efforts to cease the practice. You’re as uninformed on this issue as the MSM apparently believes Michelle Bachmann is: http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/28/levin-stephanopoulos-is-foolis

Eric, please, please don’t ever, ever let historical facts get in the way of your fantasies!

Now I am no history buff, but I do know this: Many of the Founders were slave owners, women were not permitted to vote, and the Founders conceived of an electoral college to protect the powerful from the will of the people should the people get too much out of line with their voting.

All of this has nothing to do with what I wrote above. My post was about freedom and how the Founders established it in this country. That they weren’t fully consistent with their ideals has nothing to do with those ideals themselves.

Anyway, my point is that your ideological agenda is anti-freedom. You don’t believe in it, and you don’t trust the people to have it. Pho stated it perfectly. Giving people freedom means they will be eating dog food and begging in the streets. I presume you agree with this dismal assessment, since you seem to agree with him on most everything else.

Bush’s deficits were quite modest compared to what we have now. Which belies your claim that somehow his deficits made the economy worse.
Again, you let ideology (in this case, the desire to blame Bush for everything) trump reality.

You know, you could always find out rather than arguing from your own ignorance.

Arguments along the lines of “I can’t imagine what a camel is good for, therefore they do not exist” are tedious when senile old relatives make them, let alone ignorant internet w1ngnuts. Try actually READING instead of assuming your own personal ignorance proves anything.

This, from the fellow who thinks he’s a better businessman than Hoagie.

The reason for the bad loans by unscrupulous bankers is that they were betting that the rising housing market bubble would cover them by turning bad loans into good.

You’re missing my point, which is – why would banks make bad loans in the first place? By “Bad” I mean risky, meaning lending to people with questionable credit, requiring little money down, and so forth. In short, violating decades worth of sound banking rules. You contend this was to make a profit (greed, in your lexicon) but almost by definition these loans, taken as a whole, were guaranteed to ensure a loss.

Anyway, I’m starting to wonder if the Tea Party folks are getting a bit afraid of this Fourteenth Amendment business. Hell, it’s not like they ever gave a rat’s arse about the Constitution anyway

No, that would be the Left. They tried to crush the Second Amendment, but fortunately that failed. And they seem to have nothing but contempt for the Tenth. Indeed, left to their own devices, they would trash the whole damned thing in their lust to establish government control over everything.

PS Where in the Constitution does it say the government can force you to buy health care?

Moreover, Obama inherited the Bush TARP, plus the cost of two off-budget wars, plus Medicare Part D off-budget, so the ’09 red bar is hardly all Obama. You seem to select out these pertinent facts, Hube!

And then, what shape would we have been in without the stimulus and the buyouts? Is it possible that the Obama fiscal policies saved us from a Great Depression?

I know that it hurts you, Hube, but it is time for you, Eric, and John to put the facts on the table so we can discuss instead of just accuse and trot out the ad homs. I understand that facts don’t mean much to diehard wingnuts who would prefer to make up their own “facts”!

Making a law which made a black man 3/5 of a white man is hardly “working hard to end slavery”, in my view. That slavery persisted for another 70 plus years, with the vestiges of slavery evident to this very day, can hardly be construed as working hard enough to end slavery for once and for all. Moreover, it appears to me that racism remains alive today – ask most any black person about that. Better is not good enough!!!

Regarding Michelle Bachmann, she already has left a trail of gaffes/lies, whatever they are. But it is early, so we will see how her campaign evolves. I will say this about her, having watched her in the “debate” and in several subsequent interviews, she knows how to duck direct questions and stay on message. Thus, she is not easily rattled. She is getting away with this now, but won’t once the campaign really heats up. At this point, only the foolish will not take Michelle Bachmann seriously.

I know that it hurts you, Hube, but it is time for you, Eric, and John to put the facts on the table so we can discuss instead of just accuse and trot out the ad homs.

Again, heal thyself, Herr Fossil.

It “hurts me” little to refute your assertion that somehow it is only YOU who deals in facts. THAT is the outright lie, as demonstrated by the graphic I provided. Eric wrote “Wrong. The deficits under Bush were quite modest compared to those under Obama.” To which you responded, “Quite modest”? Please, Eric, don’t ever again let facts interfere with your fantastic *thinking*!!!

How does the graphic NOT prove what Eric stated? You can make all the excuses you wish about “why” like you did in your 11:56, the fact remains that Eric’s statement is factual.

Making a law which made a black man 3/5 of a white man is hardly “working hard to end slavery”, in my view. That slavery persisted for another 70 plus years, with the vestiges of slavery evident to this very day, can hardly be construed as working hard enough to end slavery for once and for all. Moreover, it appears to me that racism remains alive today – ask most any black person about that. Better is not good enough!!!

OMG. When you said you’re not a history buff, you weren’t just whistling Dixie. Rarely have I see such outright ignorance.

Do you have ANY concept behind the 3/5 Compromise, Herr Fossil? And you don’t have to take Bachmann’s word for it — try Abe Lincoln, dolt.

“PS Where in the Constitution does it say the government can force you to buy health care?”

Where in the Constitution does it “say the government can force you to buy” auto insurance, Eric?

Get real, Eric. The Constitution essentially represents the ideological foundation behind our governmental organization and our jurisprudence, and specifies our rights. It does not represent the vast body of detailed codified law, the details of which are subject to being tested as to their constitutionality by rulings of the SCOTUS.

This health insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act will probably eventually be put to the SCOTUS test. The decision by the activist conservative majority on this court is not hard to predict.

Nevertheless, where in the Constitution does it describe the filibuster tactic in the Senate?

The very existence of a 3/5 compromise apparently is fine with you, Hube, regardless of when it was instituted. I note that Repubs like yourself are more than happy to strive to restore that 3/5 fraction again, by your actions against ACORN and your current efforts to suppress the vote. Racism is not dead yet in the Republican Party.

As always, a graph from Heritage is always something to be questioned.

First thing’s first, Perry’s not quite right about 2009, the largest deficit year, which is not just partly Bush, that is actually Bush’s budget.

But this is all pedestrian. Eric, mathematical wizard that he is, is using the bottom-feeder method of pointing to deficits under Bush, deficits under Obama, and saying SEE!!!

As has been discussed on CSPT many times with no effective rebuttal, if one looks at the actual root causes of those deficits, nearly everything originates with Bush or is a result of the freefall economic disaster he left behind.

Time and time again, I have asked people on the right to explain which Obama policies are responsible for these massive deficits. I get one answer, the stimulus. Which was one-third tax cuts (crickets each and every single time that is mentioned, Limbaugh must have passed a law saying the stimulus tax cuts must remain invisible), about $400 billion of actual spending. How does that account for trillion dollar deficits several years in a row? Obviously it cannot.

No, get ready for 2012 to be the most superficial and fraudulent campaign run by Republicans since…well, 2010, really.

Eric, not responding to my points but trying to launch his own attacks to distract from this fascinating 14th Amendment issue:

No, that would be the Left. They tried to crush the Second Amendment, but fortunately that failed. And they seem to have nothing but contempt for the Tenth. Indeed, left to their own devices, they would trash the whole damned thing in their lust to establish government control over everything.

The point about the Second Amendment is taken, although I have personally always supported gun rights, albeit with licensing and restrictions on the mentally ill, felons, and other special cases. Gun trading is a family affair for me, so it’s never been in question in my world. But as noted, Democrats have mostly backed off most heavy gun control measures and generally favor the most popular, sensible reforms.

Regarding the tenth, who knows what this is about. Yeah, we’re not in support of states denying individuals their fundamental civil liberties, because the Constitution also forbids states the power to do so in that Fourteenth Amendment you guys hate so much.

Yet Democrats, although fewer politicians, are trying to get a bill passed that would get the feds to back off states that legalize marijuana. Of course, “states’ rights,” became popularized as a racist dogwhistle for neo-Confederates who were still resentful that the Union told the South what to do about slavery, later segregation and abolishing Jim Crow laws.

PS Where in the Constitution does it say the government can force you to buy health care?

Where it says the government has the power to tax income, the Sixteenth Amendment.

Now, were you going to answer the question about the Fourtheenth Amendment and the GOP trying to sabotage the credit of the US?

I dunno, these guys let Glenn Beck rewrite all their history books anyway. It’s rather amazing that somebody can say we were doing “fine” before SS, but the history is rather clear the Industrial Revolution led to the diminishing of the extended family, while health improvements led to a huge jump in life expectancy. Coupled with the Great Depression, poverty among the elderly was rampant. America simply wasn’t going to tolerate it. Telling old people, “Hey, at least you’re free!” didn’t occur to us, I guess…

The very existence of a 3/5 compromise apparently is fine with you, Hube, regardless of when it was instituted. I note that Repubs like yourself are more than happy to strive to restore that 3/5 fraction again, by your actions against ACORN and your current efforts to suppress the vote. Racism is not dead yet in the Republican Party.

OMG. “Pathetic” just earned a new definition. Truest words spoken today: “Now I am no history buff …”

Where in the Constitution does it “say the government can force you to buy” auto insurance, Eric?

Guess what, idiot Perry. The government cannot force you to buy auto insurance. If you do not own an auto, you do not need auto insurance. In fact, there are still states that do not require a driver on public highways to buy auto insurance. Ohio is one of them. Financial responsibility, yes. Auto insurance, not necessarily. So, like has been stated ad nauseum, there are ways to avoid being mandated to buy auto insurance; therefore, it is not a government requirement just for existing within America’s borders.

Hube says:
29 June 2011 at 19:07 (Edit)

The very existence of a 3/5 compromise apparently is fine with you, Hube, regardless of when it was instituted. I note that Repubs like yourself are more than happy to strive to restore that 3/5 fraction again, by your actions against ACORN and your current efforts to suppress the vote. Racism is not dead yet in the Republican Party.

OMG. “Pathetic” just earned a new definition. Truest words spoken today: “Now I am no history buff …”

Pound sand, you execrable POS.

Proof positive Perry is most definitely not interested in histo-facts. What an ignoramus! Perry, do yourself a favor and shut up about anything involving American History. Because you don’t know the first thing about it. You might be able to hide your total ignorance of histo-facts if you don’t try to talk about history.

“Perry, next time you want to attack me about not having my facts right, look at that graph.”

Typically, Eric, you did not stop for a second to think of the issues that underlie that graph, which is one of your credibility problems on here.

I’m not the one with the credibility problem. Hube’s graph backed up exactly what I had said. You wonder why I rarely provide cites? Because I know damned well you will just ignore them and press on unabated with your ideological agenda. Given that fact, why should I waste my time?

The very existence of a 3/5 compromise apparently is fine with you, Hube, regardless of when it was instituted. I note that Repubs like yourself are more than happy to strive to restore that 3/5 fraction again, by your actions against ACORN and your current efforts to suppress the vote. Racism is not dead yet in the Republican Party.

Hube is right. You have no f*cking clue why the 3/5ths rule was put into the Constitution.

And today Social Security keeps 13 million seniors out of poverty. Generally, about half of seniors would be living below the poverty line without it.

I somehow doubt that. One, that money isn’t free, it was taken from these same seniors (and their employers) when they were working. The only fair way to analyze this is to guess how rich those people would have been had the government given them the option of keeping their own money instead of taking it from them.

Another issue with Perry’s complete ignorance of histo-fact: If it was illegal for women to vote (and there is nothing in the Constitution making it illegal) then why were New Jersey women voting, and legally so, in the 1790s?

Perry has zero understanding of the 3/5 Compromise. Zero. And Perry has zero understanding of 18th Century women voters. Perry’s claim that he is no history buff was an absolutely HUGE understatement, as Perry continues to prove he has zero understanding of history.

“Another issue with Perry’s complete ignorance of histo-fact: If it was illegal for women to vote (and there is nothing in the Constitution making it illegal) then why were New Jersey women voting, and legally so, in the 1790s?

Perry has zero understanding of the 3/5 Compromise. Zero. And Perry has zero understanding of 18th Century women voters. Perry’s claim that he is no history buff was an absolutely HUGE understatement, as Perry continues to prove he has zero understanding of history.”

Here comes John again with his personal attacks and generalizations without substance and anecdotal information which proves nothing, all hardly worth more of a response than this!

And today Social Security keeps 13 million seniors out of poverty. Generally, about half of seniors would be living below the poverty line without it.

I somehow doubt that. One, that money isn’t free, it was taken from these same seniors (and their employers) when they were working. The only fair way to analyze this is to guess how rich those people would have been had the government given them the option of keeping their own money instead of taking it from them.”

So, Eric, you somehow doubt that? Where are your facts to back up your contention.

I wonder what would have become of people who would have opted for privatization after the stock market fell due to the Bush Great Recession?

Moreover, you continue to misunderstand the purpose of Social Security, which is to provide a safety net.

Be careful, Eric, you and your wife will be very glad you have it in about 30 years, in your senior years, Medicare too (assuming we don’t drastically change it now); or would you rather be dependent on your adult children to step up to your unforeseen emergencies. In the next 30 years you will learn how high the cost of living really is regarding college education and medical costs especially, making it difficult to build up your nest egg. Right now, I suspect that you are either oblivious or dependent on an inheritance.

Here comes John again with his personal attacks and generalizations without substance and anecdotal information which proves nothing, all hardly worth more of a response than this!

Translation: Perry didn’t realize New Jersey women were legally voting in the 18th Century, destroying his meme, and Perry doesn’t have the time to research the 3/5 Compromise, especially since that too would destroy his meme.

Perry is too invested in his lies to learn the truth, too invested in radical Leftist talking points to educate himself and become less ignorant. Perry is the definition of a fool and a gap builder.

Here comes John again with his personal attacks and generalizations without substance and anecdotal information which proves nothing, all hardly worth more of a response than this!

yet in response to queries about the 3/5 Compromise, etc., we got this:

The very existence of a 3/5 compromise apparently is fine with you, Hube, regardless of when it was instituted. I note that Repubs like yourself are more than happy to strive to restore that 3/5 fraction again, by your actions against ACORN and your current efforts to suppress the vote. Racism is not dead yet in the Republican Party.

You are a walking (barely), talking, laughable, hypocritical, pathetic joke of a “man,” Herr Fossil.

Translation: The Women’s Suffrage Movement was a waste of time, and we should have continued having our black population count as 3/5 of a citizen, because this is what our Founders specified.

That is as silly as thinking that the US Constitution should be treated like a Bible, as absolutists like John Hitchcock would force us to believe if he had the power to do so. Both writings are very important stakes in the ground, as are other important antiquities, but nothing more. Both need to be put into the context of what we have learned in the meantime, otherwise foolishness and even evil emerges at the hands of self-proclaimed despots.

Perry, don’t be an idiot. Actually study history. The 3/5 Compromise wasn’t about blacks. It was about slaves. And it wasn’t anything like what you claim it to be. But you’d know that if you actually studied history. And you cannot study history to learn because doing so would destroy most, if not all, of what you push.

You maintain your ignorance so you can keep up with your lies. You are the definition of a fool.

And the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not some mere “important antiquity, but nothing more”. Your philosophy is the philosophy of the Destruction of America, and nothing more.

John, your spin on slavery and your absolutist twist on the Constitution are not impressive. You are not in touch. I stand by my previous statement.

And I’ll ask you the same question I asked Hube. Why not ignore me? Why not ignore PiaToR and Henry, since we are all trash? Answer: You are unable/incapable of doing so, and, not doing so puts your own insecurities on display on a daily basis.

When one spews outrageous FALSEHOODS about basic American history, perhaps reasonable and rational people feel a duty to correct the record … even when the moron persists with his ludicrous nonsense.

Well then you have a mighty low regard for the readers of this blog, Hube. Shouldn’t they be able to discern the FALSEHOODS you allege? No, the reason is that you are obsessed, in my view.

And btw, exactly what are the falsehoods to which you refer? Answer: If one disagrees with the mighty trio, Hube, John, and Eric, by definition they are liars. This is a repeating meme of you three on here. Another clue: You three have a compulsion to launch personal attacks rather than debate the points of discussion. This demonstrates personal weakness on your part, as well as a reluctance to actually debate the issues.

You make yourselves look stupid by your behavior, which could be changed if you wished, I assume!

Now what were the issues we could be debating/discussing? Are you indeed reasonable and rational, Hube, down deep?

And to claim the Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the Land proves you have not actually read the Constitution itself. And to claim that I spun anything about slavery is to prove you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Go back to grade school, Perry, and learn history so you look less the fool.

When one spews outrageous FALSEHOODS about basic American history, perhaps reasonable and rational people feel a duty to correct the record … even when the moron persists with his ludicrous nonsense.

You really do have a memory problem, Herr Fossil. Whatsamatter? Can’t even keep track of the very thread you’re writing on?? LMAO!!

Here: Here’s the biggest whopper you spewed in here. Just recall the ONE truthful statement you’ve made in this thread: “Now I am no history buff …”

Moron.

Liar, moron, Hube continues to demonstrate his weaknesses.

Hube, I will ask again: Exactly what are my falsehoods to which you refer? Your cite does not answer that question. So answer it in your own words, this time, assuming that you are able.

You actually could have pointed this out, Hube:

“Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting “all other persons” as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.”

So it was an issue not only of representation, but also of taxes, a North v South contention.

But you did not point this out, Hube, as you continued your masquerade of historical knowledge. Nor did John point this out either. Why is that, Hube/John?

Now ponder this statement:

“”Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own. …They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together. …Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?” – Alexander Hamilton”

He saw the inherent racism, which persists in some Americans/Republicans to this very day. Is that you, Hube?

I wonder what would have become of people who would have opted for privatization after the stock market fell due to the Bush Great Recession?

They would be fine because the stock market is back up to its old level.

Anyway, if Social Security is so swell, why don’t they make it voluntary? Give us the freedom to opt out if we choose, that’s what a truly FREE nation would do.

Think about it. What is Social Security? All during our work years the government takes and takes and takes money out of our wallets without asking our permission or giving us any say in the matter. Then, when we retire, they and only they get to decide how much they will pay us back and when. Unlike a private account, you have absolutely NO control over the process.

“They would be fine because the stock market is back up to its old level.”

That assumes that they stayed in the market, an assumption that I doubt is true of many, yours truly being one. Fortunately, I saw it coming and got out in time!

“Anyway, if Social Security is so swell, why don’t they make it voluntary? Give us the freedom to opt out if we choose, that’s what a truly FREE nation would do.”

The safety net would not be one if it was made voluntary. Moreover, the program is very popular. Something like 90% of Americans do not want it changed, which is why Bush failed in his attempts to change it.

And again, Eric, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of a safety net, but what the hell, you are in the 10% demographic. Even then, in 30 years or so, your attitude will change, I guarantee it!

I wonder what would have become of people who would have opted for privatization after the stock market fell due to the Bush Great Recession?

PS You don’t wonder at all. You HOPE they will all be living on dog food, then you could say “See, I TOLD you so!” It’s all about ego for you left wingers, you just want to be “Right” no matter what. What you basically HOPE for is that freedom won’t work, and that people will have to rely on government dependence to survive. In short, your ideology is anti-freedom.

“2. I wonder how many of those people fully realize how much money is taken out of their wallets over their lifetimes, and how much good it would do if they were allowed to use it as THEY saw fit.”

Again, Eric, your views represent a small minority. Most Americans appreciate having that safety net, because “but for the grace of God go I”. In other words, no matter how organized and how prepared you are, there are events that are out of your control and can wipe you out very quickly. Social Security is partial insurance against this. There are certain things that we must be made to have, Social Security is one, car insurance is another. If Social Security were not mandatory, would we just let the unfortunate losers rot in the street or under bridges? No, we would not, so they would become our burden, which would cost us yet more money.

He saw the inherent racism, which persists in some Americans/Republicans to this very day. Is that you, Hube?

Haha, good one, Herr Fossil. I suppose a raging anti-Semite who continually backs terrorists feels the need to project his inherent (and repugnant) weaknesses upon others.

Nevertheless, your Hamilton quote 1) demonstrates that Michelle Bachmann (among others) was right, and you wrong, and the many of the Founders did oppose slavery and worked to undermine the institution, and 2) has nothing to do with your contention about the 3/5 Compromise. To revisit:

Herr Fossil: “Making a law which made a black man 3/5 of a white man is hardly “working hard to end slavery”, in my view.”

My link from my 11:24: The following false statements are just three examples of inaccurate interpretations that persist regarding the three/fifths compromise: The 3/5s compromise of 1788 and enshrined slavery in the United States Constitution; African Americans in this country were considered only 3/5s human at one point in history; We tried “compromise” and declared blacks to be 3/5s human.

Do you now feel silly yet, Herr Fossil, for saying this: Your cite does not answer that question. So answer it in your own words, this time, assuming that you are able.

Yes, the cite does indeed refute your ridiculous historical inaccuracies (see above), and why should answer it in my own words when my cite does it so perfectly? Is this your new tactic — when a cite is provided you’ll now demand that a commenter make you look like a moron in his own words? LMAO!!!

“PS You don’t wonder at all. You HOPE they will all be living on dog food, then you could say “See, I TOLD you so!” It’s all about ego for you left wingers, you just want to be “Right” no matter what. What you basically HOPE for is that freedom won’t work, and that people will have to rely on government dependence to survive. In short, your ideology is anti-freedom.”

Eric, stop your silly assumptions. And about me, you are wrong on every allegation you made here. I’m hopeful that during the next 30 years up until you are a senior citizen yourself, that you will recalibrate your views to being more in touch with a larger variety of people. You speak like someone living in a glass house in a gated community, you know, very fearful of your neighbors and fellow citizens.

“Haha, good one, Herr Fossil. I suppose a raging anti-Semite who continually backs terrorists feels the need to project his inherent (and repugnant) weaknesses upon others.”

Both allegations are untrue, except in your own little world, Hube.

“My link from my 11:24: The following false statements are just three examples of inaccurate interpretations that persist regarding the three/fifths compromise: The 3/5s compromise of 1788 and enshrined slavery in the United States Constitution; African Americans in this country were considered only 3/5s human at one point in history; We tried “compromise” and declared blacks to be 3/5s human.”

Your cite was a very poor choice, as there was no discussion to confirm the allegations nor to back up the author’s opinion. If you were/are impressed with this, your standards are very low, and your arguments unconvincing.

In my post, I offered you a cite the likings of which you could have chosen, since you apparently were, and still are, unable to articulate your alleged knowledge of the history of the 3/5 compromise, a political compromise which considered the slaves as property to be horse traded in order to make meet certain political goals. If you look back fondly on this moment in our history, well guess what Hube: I am not the least bit surprised!

And then you persist in your obsession with the personal attacks, as if your simple arguments are not enough, which they aren’t. You are too much, Hube!

It’s kind of hard to argue with somebody as thunderously dense as Eric.

The only fair way to analyze this is to guess how rich those people would have been had the government given them the option of keeping their own money instead of taking it from them.

Wouldn’t the situation before SS be a fair portrait of what life without SS is like?

Guessing isn’t required, is it, Eric?

Of course, there is no reason to doubt the figures I cited, Eric, except that they conflict with the dippy stuff you cram into your head all day from rightwing propagandists. Nothing is stopping most people from investing if they want to invest, it’s not too hard to match what’s taken out for SS with private savings if that’s really what you want to do. Blathering about freedom doesn’t make your positions less cruel or senseless.

Yet, of course, your SS payment is being spent right now to take care of old folks right now. We didn’t set it up as a strict investment scheme, but as a safety net to take care of the old folks from day one Social Security was passed.

Why is it you need to be told such things? For all the lambasting you guys are doing towards Perry for historical mistakes (which would be accurate to you if Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann said them), you seem to have no problem talking about Social Security when you seem to know next to nothing about it. Oh, the couple yearly percentage points of interest folks could make off private investment would make that different between poverty and wealth?

Of course, what privatizing SS is about is dumping trillions more in Wall Street’s lap. Like they give a rat’s ass if you’re retiring well!

It seems to me that when Bush tried this thing in 2005 and was thoroughly rebuked by the public, you were in your bubble, weren’t you? What’s the matter, Fox didn’t give you the straight story?

Most Americans appreciate having that safety net, because “but for the grace of God go I”. In other words, no matter how organized and how prepared you are, there are events that are out of your control and can wipe you out very quickly.

If you invested even reasonably prudently, then the odds of this happening are very low, so there’s no reason not to give people the freedom to opt out of Social Security if they choose to. After all, freedom is this country’s highest ideal, is it not?

But there’s a larger issue at stake, and that is a fundamental difference in character between liberals and conservatives. Conservatism is a political philosophy that is best suited to self-confident people, people who are independent minded and believe in the concept of rugged individualism. Liberalism is an ideology for people who are basically sheep, people who value security above all else. And, as Ben Franklin once put it – People who would trade their liberty for security deserve neither.

Blathering about freedom doesn’t make your positions less cruel or senseless.

Cram your “Cruel” right up your ass. This is truly the last mark of the scoundrel. When all else fails, label those who argue for individual freedom names. This is part of the left wing agenda, and it is cynical and ugly.

Anyway, I have the ideal society for you and all of you left wingers who prefer collectivism over liberty. It’s called the Borg. Look into it.

If you invested even reasonably prudently, then the odds of this happening are very low, so there’s no reason not to give people the freedom to opt out of Social Security if they choose to. After all, freedom is this country’s highest ideal, is it not?

You seem to be spectactularly ignorant in this thread.

You may not have noticed, but there was just a financial crisis. A lot of boomer Americans are now facing an impoverished retirement, with their retirement savings disappearing in a cloud of fake bonds and Wall Street greed. Those boomers at least have SS to fall back on.

What you are pushing as a model for society is a situation where, with the next crisis, those victims are left to starve to death without that buffer to fall back on.

let me stress your stupidity here – you are claiming ‘the odds of something going wrong are very low” – JUST AS YOUR COUNTRY IS GOING THROUGH THE WORST DEPRESSION SINCE THE GREAT ONE!!!!

Most Americans appreciate having that safety net, because “but for the grace of God go I”. In other words, no matter how organized and how prepared you are, there are events that are out of your control and can wipe you out very quickly.

If you invested even reasonably prudently, then the odds of this happening are very low, so there’s no reason not to give people the freedom to opt out of Social Security if they choose to. After all, freedom is this country’s highest ideal, is it not?

What does “investing reasonably prudently” mean, Eric? Enlighten us please!

Moreover, you continue to be ignorant of the concept of a safety net. You never learn, do you?

Finally, Social Security has been a very highly regarded and popular social program for over 70 years, otherwise it would not exist today. Bush’s utter failure to change it is recent proof of this fact, yet you typically choose to ignore facts which you do not like, as demonstrated repeatedly on this blog. That’s being purposely ignorant, Eric.

But there’s a larger issue at stake, and that is a fundamental difference in character between liberals and conservatives. Conservatism is a political philosophy that is best suited to self-confident people, people who are independent minded and believe in the concept of rugged individualism. Liberalism is an ideology for people who are basically sheep, people who value security above all else. And, as Ben Franklin once put it – People who would trade their liberty for security deserve neither.

And what research do you have to substantiate this propagandistic poppycock, Eric? This made up stuff is a figment of your imagination, and nothing more, therefore not at all convincing to anyone who has a functional brain.

Just a reminder of some documented facts, Eric: American Conservatism has been the principal cause of our Great Recession, based on their initiation of two wars costing $3.7 trillion, 26% of our national debt, and our declining middle class over three decades, and the corruption of our government by the powerful wealthy, and the movement of wealth into the hands of about 2% of our population. If this is the America you like, then you will continue to enjoy seeing our country in continual decline.

Just a reminder of some documented facts, Eric: American Conservatism has been the principal cause of our Great Recession

LOL … is this like your “settled science,” Herr Fossil? Just a reminder that this is your opinion, not documented facts, Herr Fossil. And as one who has demonstrated fundamental difficulties with “documented facts,” you’re in no position to state “documented facts.”

Consider what you just said: “American conservatism.” What is “conservative” about wild spending and nation-building in foreign lands?

What is conservative about FDR’s anti-constitutional alphabet-soup giant government takeover of everything in sight? That very thing that caused the Great Depression and extended it a great many years? That very thing UCLA economists said we would not have another if we didn’t do it again? That very opposite thing we did instead of doing what killed the Depression of 1920?

“LOL … is this like your “settled science,” Herr Fossil? Just a reminder that this is your opinion, not documented facts, Herr Fossil. And as one who has demonstrated fundamental difficulties with “documented facts,” you’re in no position to state “documented facts.””

Republicans claim to be Conservatives, Republicans were in power 2001-2009, Republican Conservatives brought this country into a Great Recession. Only a partisan unwilling to admit to the truth would doubt that quite obvious documentation! Is that you, Hube?

“Consider what you just said: “American conservatism.” What is “conservative” about wild spending and nation-building in foreign lands?”

You need to ask self-proclaimed Conservatives that question. Most Conservatives never said a word from 2001-2009, so I guess you might say they are all faux Conservatives. But then, since Obama and the Dems have strived to right our ship of state, these faux Conservatives have been screaming, to the point that they are threatening to see the US default on our their debt.

Republicans claim to be Conservatives, Republicans were in power 2001-2008, Republican Conservatives brought this country into a Great Recession. Only a partisan unwilling to admit to the truth would doubt that quite obvious documentation!

False, false, false, false.

Not all Republicans claim to be Conservatives; not all Conservatives are Republicans. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Democrats ran Congress after they were swept into power in the 2006 election cycle and the recession started after Democrats took over Congress.

CRA, which was and is a Leftist “force the banks to lend money to people who shouldn’t be lent the money” thing, is what caused the mortgage bubble which burst, causing the deep recession. Obama and the Democrats’ actions since have only exacerbated the recession, just as the UCLA economists said their course of action would.

Only a hyper-partisan radical Leftist who is ignorant of histo-facts and absolutely unwilling to examine the facts would reject the Truth. And that is you and your ilk, ignorant-of-history Perry.

Oh yes, I forgot: When it is good, Republicans get the credit; when it is bad, Democrats get the blame!

The $3.7 trillion wars and the off-budget spending, all done by Bush Conservative Republicans, continued us on our path to serious fiscal irresponsibility, as initiated by the Reagan Conservative Republicans. The facts don’t lie, although you may personally choose to do so again by making stuff up, John.

Perry, you really need to quit lying practically every time you start typing, and repeated flashing of your cute little propaganda chart will not change facts, such as Reagan’s tax cuts increased tax revenue and Democrats controlled the House of Representatives during Reagan’s tenure and during Bush-41′s tenure.

The deficit is not a revenue problem. It’s a Leftist spending problem.

Moreover, where are your facts, John? I have yet to see any, only spin and made up stuff.

Please note that my facts come from the Bush White House, covering up to 2000. This represents the history that you deny, and replace with history which you made up, for example: “The deficit is not a revenue problem. It’s a Leftist spending problem.”

What you are pushing as a model for society is a situation where, with the next crisis, those victims are left to starve to death without that buffer to fall back on.

Two points:

1. You must have missed the part where I explained to Perry that the market is back to where it was before the crash. That means your money is still worth the same as it was then. The stock market, as a whole, ALWAYS goes up over the long term, but for those who still find it too risky, you can always invest in bonds.

2. My proposal is to give people the FREEDOM to opt out of SS and control their own money. It was that noble ideal of liberty that the Founders fought for and that we patriots are still trying to preserve. But people who are risk averse could still stay within the current system. Of course, the thing you collectivists hate most about such an idea is one that gives individuals more freedom and the government less control.

But there’s a larger issue at stake, and that is a fundamental difference in character between liberals and conservatives. Conservatism is a political philosophy that is best suited to self-confident people, people who are independent minded and believe in the concept of rugged individualism. Liberalism is an ideology for people who are basically sheep, people who value security above all else. And, as Ben Franklin once put it – People who would trade their liberty for security deserve neither.

And what research do you have to substantiate this propagandistic poppycock, Eric? This made up stuff is a figment of your imagination, and nothing more, therefore not at all convincing to anyone who has a functional brain

Translation: You can’t answer any of the points I brought up above. Got it.

Finally, Social Security has been a very highly regarded and popular social program for over 70 years

If some people like it, then fine, they can stay with it. But give people the FREEDOM to opt out if they like. Offering people this CHOICE was a key part of Bush’s plan, but you Democrats demagogued it to death anyway. Seems that you Democrats are against choice in everything except abortion.

Really impressive, Eric! Doesn’t say much about the influence in your life of your self-proclaimed faith in Christ, nor about your Conservative values, now does it?

If someone’s going to call me “Cruel” or any other name, you can be damned sure I’m gonna push back. What, are you suggesting I be a pussy and just take it?

You can give it out, but you can’t take it, is that what you are saying, Eric? Certainly, you can be expected to push back, as happens all the time on here. But if you think that particular push back works well for you, well that’s your choice, just as it is mine to push back as well.

You can give it out, but you can’t take it, is that what you are saying, Eric?

What a stupid comment. Anyway, the point you are missing in all of this is that there is a larger principle at stake. Are we a nation of individual liberty or are we not? Social Security wasn’t just an infringement on our rights to govern our own lives, it also set a precedent. It was followed by the Great Society and ObamaCare, among many others. Basically, what it said is there IS no practical limit to how much government can grow, how much power it can take, and how much money it can tax. This, of course, is exactly what the collectivists want and freedom be damned.

You can give it out, but you can’t take it, is that what you are saying, Eric?

How about the freedom for a woman to abort her fetus, Eric?

How about the freedom which would allow a gay couple to marry?

How about the freedom that would provide a good education to every child?

Even with Social Security, and the Great Society, we still have serious social shortfalls.

So you see, Eric, your idea of freedom is self-limited to that which you personally favor, and the rest is glibly assigned by you to those who favor them to what you derisively refer to as “collectivists”.

I don’t think you have any idea what it would be like had we not had the government programs you deride. Too many things can happen to people which are out of their control, in which case it is up to us as members of the same community to step up and help. Individual efforts at doing so are wonderful, but hardly enough to cover every eventuality, so the result would be a lot of suffering.

You are young enough and lucky enough not to see severe suffering so far, thanks to programs like Social Security and the Great Society, and thanks to a prosperous economy. But the times are changing, to a point where more people need some assistance, having seen their salaries erode and their jobs disappear without more jobs being created. Yet if the Republicans had their way, no assistance would be forthcoming.

If current trends continue, you are going to see more suffering, and more serious suffering, in your lifetime, exacerbated by the government dysfunction that ultra- partisan politics has produced. This appears to be the new America, and it is not at all pretty. Moreover, the Repubs are not helping to solve our problems. They are more concerned with getting rid of Obama!

What a stupid comment. Anyway, the point you are missing in all of this is that there is a larger principle at stake. Are we a nation of individual liberty or are we not? Social Security wasn’t just an infringement on our rights to govern our own lives, it also set a precedent. It was followed by the Great Society and ObamaCare, among many others. Basically, what it said is there IS no practical limit to how much government can grow, how much power it can take, and how much money it can tax. This, of course, is exactly what the collectivists want and freedom be damned.

You mean like this, Herr Fossil? Who’s been in here day after day clamoring that Obama’s profligate spending “saved us all? Uh huh:

“There is no evidence that huge inflow of money into the system basically worked,” Greenspan said in a live interview.

“It obviously had some effect on the exchange rate and the exchange rate was a critical issue in export expansion,” he said. “Aside from that, I am ill-aware of anything that really worked. Not only QE2 but QE1.”

B-b-b-but Herr Fossil has said that Obama saved us! How can Greenspan say this?? “Facts,” maybe.

The $3.7 trillion wars and the off-budget spending, all done by Bush Conservative Republicans, continued us on our path to serious fiscal irresponsibility, as initiated by the Reagan Conservative Republicans.

Uh huh. Remember this chart, Herr Fossil? It includes Bush’s war spending.

I don’t think you have any idea what it would be like had we not had the government programs you deride. Too many things can happen to people which are out of their control, in which case it is up to us as members of the same community to step up and help. Individual efforts at doing so are wonderful, but hardly enough to cover every eventuality, so the result would be a lot of suffering.

You are young enough and lucky enough not to see severe suffering so far, thanks to programs like Social Security and the Great Society, and thanks to a prosperous economy. But the times are changing, to a point where more people need some assistance, having seen their salaries erode and their jobs disappear without more jobs being created. Yet if the Republicans had their way, no assistance would be forthcoming.

Several points, from least important to most:

One, our poor live like princes compared to much of the rest of the world. And our middle class live like kings. We are an extremely rich country, rich enough that, unless you’re disabled and have no friends or family, you should be able to provide for yourself. Self reliance is a virtue and government dependence (unless absolutely necessary) a vice. Our society should be promoting more virtue and less vice, don’t you think?

Two, you big government liberals think that the government grows money on trees, and that every time they harvest some it grows right back. All that money that you think you’re being “Generous” with has to come from someone, so your welfare schemes are, quite bluntly, a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. And theft is immoral, indeed, it says so in the Bible.

And, three, There’s the freedom thing, which you seem to scoff at. Like I said earlier, if the government can force you to pay into Social Security and force you to buy health care, then are there any limits at all to what they can do? And lastly, just exactly what kind of nation are we? A nation of rugged individualists, strong, proud, and free, or a nation of timid little sheep who run to the government for help if someone says “Boo!” to them?

LOL! All else fails? When did anything else I say failed? You actually have to respond to my points for me to get desperate that you’re knocking down my arguments! “When all else fails…” describes most of your responses, desperate attempts to say anything back, just to prove you’re not a “p**sy,” when I’d much rather you try to prove you have a brain in your head.

“This, of course, is exactly what the collectivists want and freedom be damned.”

See, you’re all Limbaugh-fed ideology, not enough reality. All these terrible terribles you mention, SS, Medicare, and eventually Obamacare, will be responsible for the well-being and health of millions of Americans. What “freedom” have we sacrificed to get such results? Ah, by “freedom,” you’re really talking about deductions from your paycheck. Whereas the programs mentioned offer people the freedom of knowing that when they get old and can no longer work, they won’t be left to live their final years in poverty, or rot to death. Or that they won’t be condemned to illness or death because they don’t have the right kind of job.

PS Where in the Constitution does it say the government can force you to buy health care?

Where it says the government has the power to tax income, the Sixteenth Amendment.

I believe this is what’s known in logic classes as a non sequitur.

As usual, you see fit to lecture others about what they know when you are criminally uninformed. Do you know what the penalty for the mandate is, Eric? A rather paltry tax. Why? Because freeloaders that go without insurance for years (I’m being slightly sarcastic, since many people simply can’t afford health care) drive up costs for everybody when they enter the system later. The mandate penalty is an attempt to tax those responsible for this cost that society must pay, since we agreed, commie tyrants that we are, not to leave people dying in the streets.

“Are we a nation of individual liberty or are we not?”

Black/white either/or fallacy. Liberties are always in competition with each other. If you don’t understand that basic principle, you really have no grounds to be talking to other people about freedoms. As usual, you haven’t the slightest clue what you’re talking about, you’re just good at spamming GOP talking points.

Hitchcock can always be counted upon to spout the worst misinformation of all, and sure enough, “CRA, which was and is a Leftist “force the banks to lend money to people who shouldn’t be lent the money” thing, is what caused the mortgage bubble which burst, causing the deep recession.” is the source of our ills.

CRA is a 1977 law, naturally, having the double advantage of being able to blame Carter and the blacks for a crash in 2008. Not the ability to sell a home to any moron on the street who can hold a pen and sell off the debt as AAA, as GOP regulatory policies allowed!

Henry Whistler, why is it you are so racist? Seriously, dude, you need to recover from your racism. It’s a wacked-out Leftist thing, all this racism and misogyny, as the historical record and current events show.

“One, our poor live like princes compared to much of the rest of the world. And our middle class live like kings.”

What is it like to live like princes or kings in our country, Eric?

“All that money that you think you’re being “Generous” with has to come from someone, so your welfare schemes are, quite bluntly, a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

Social Security and Medicare, which is what we are talking about, are hardly “welfare schemes”. Both are government run insurance policies to which all pay premiums for their entire lives. I continue to pay premiums for both, out of my part time job earnings and my pensions.

“Like I said earlier, if the government can force you to pay into Social Security and force you to buy health care, then are there any limits at all to what they can do?”

The limits are in the hands of our elected representatives in the federal government.

“And lastly, just exactly what kind of nation are we? A nation of rugged individualists, strong, proud, and free, or a nation of timid little sheep who run to the government for help if someone says “Boo!” to them?”

We also have corporations who are like “timid little sheep” who accept gigantic subsidies from our government. Why don’t you talk about this, Eric?

Social Security and Medicare are both Ponzi Schemes. And they’re both bankrupting the US.

The US working poor and middle class are indeed very wealthy compared to most of the rest of the world, and it is precisely because the US set up a system 400 years ago (yes, before the US was a nation) that is antithetical to socialists’ desires. That leaves Perry on the outside, looking in.

Big Business and Big Government work hand-in-glove as they both push for greater government powers and they both work out special loopholes the little businesses cannot get. That’s Leftism, not Conservative principles. Want to kill the power of Big Business? Destroy the overbearing power of Big Government. Put government back in its Constitutionally mandated place. But radical Leftists such as Perry would never dream of doing that. That would mean Government wouldn’t be able to control what people eat.

The limits are in the hands of our elected representatives in the federal government.

Nope. Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. The limit is the Constitution which, as John keeps reminding you, it still the supreme law of the land. Or, at least, it is supposed to be, that is, before you collectivists get your hands on it.

As usual, you see fit to lecture others about what they know when you are criminally uninformed. Do you know what the penalty for the mandate is, Eric? A rather paltry tax

Bzzzt, wrong again. It was never proposed as a tax, that little dodge only came about when you left wingers realized it wouldn’t pass Constitutional muster any other way. And, besides, call it a fee or a tax, it’s still government forcing to you buy something against your will, which is just plain un-American.

Finally awakening the public to the outright danger to the US that Liberals and Socialists and the Governing Class is.
Causing the Liberals and Socialists and the Governing Class to declare openly that the Constitution is rather useless.
Causing the public to finally stand to fight to preserve the Constitution, which is what made America great and protected the free world.

Those are but three of I’m sure a myriad more, none of which Obama and his sycophants expected or desired. Everything Obama and his sycophants stand for is anti-Founder, anti-Constitutional, anti-average Joe, anti-Freedom, anti-Liberty, anti-Truth.

Yes, it’s a penalty forced on someone who chooses not to buy something. It is not a tax. It is the government stealing the people’s freedom from them. It is anathema to the Founders’ and Framers’ hopes, dreams, goals, desires. It is Death to the US as it has been for 400 years (yes, since prior to the founding of the US itself). It is not at all a tax. To label it a tax is to lie.

See, you’re all Limbaugh-fed ideology, not enough reality. All these terrible terribles you mention, SS, Medicare, and eventually Obamacare, will be responsible for the well-being and health of millions of Americans.

That’s exactly what’s wrong with you collectivists and left wingers. The incredible arrogance. Obamacare is good for you because WE say so, and if you don’t like it (as tens of millions of Americans don’t) then we’re just going to shove it down your throats anyway. It’s your constant lust for more and more and more power over the individual that sickens those of us who yearn for freedom and the the ideal of limited government as envisioned by the Founders.

Reject the Constitution and you’re no better than North Korea, which Obama took off the terrorist sponsor list. Stand for the Constitution and radical Leftists will equate you with Israel, which Obama put on the terrorist sponsor list.

Radical Leftists will be the end of the US unless good men stand up against them. Because radical Leftism, of which Socialism is a part (and Progressivism is indeed Socialism), is the evil against which all good men must speak out.

Hitchcock: Okay, so when you get caught saying racist stuff, your response is to call me racist three times back, for identifying your racist stuff?

Just kidding. I already knew that was your strategy. Question: Who on earth do you think you’re fooling? I mean, sure, fellow rightwingers go YEAH! but who else? And if you’re going to say, “Seriously…” can you follow it with something serious?

Eric: Much like Hitchcock, you don’t seem to have much of a response so you’re just going to keep repeating FREEDOM LIBERTY at me.

In your world, if we as a democracy decide to use the Constitutional income tax to promote the general welfare, as the Constitution says we should, and it means one dollar goes to somebody who didn’t “earn” it and came from somebody who did, then we’re living in a Communist totalitarian nightmare.

The real question is, when are you little children going to grow up and stop being such whiny babies?

Obamacare is good for you because WE say so, and if you don’t like it (as tens of millions of Americans don’t) then we’re just going to shove it down your throats anyway.

Hey, Foxbot, remember 2008 when Obama ran on and won the election promising national health care reform? Man, you are so trapped in your bubble.

“Collectivist” describes the good ole’ USA in many respects, but not in all. We’re collectivist about defense, because privatizing our armies wouldn’t work. We’re collectivist about prisons, because for-profit prisons would perpetually seek ways to get more Americans in prison. We’re collectivist about schools, because the general welfare is improved by having as many people as possible educated. We’re collectivist when it comes to roads, because roads built strictly for profit wouldn’t reach many Americans. We’re collectivist when it snows too much and the county workers need to clear those obscure roads for us.

And we’re becoming increasingly collectivist about our health, because all your FREEDOM shyster rhetoric, which is really about putting as much loot as possible in corporate hands and not healing people, means millions sick, dying and dead because privatizing health is expensive and ineffective at reaching all Americans.

It’s the people left behind that move Americans to seek ways to help. Yeah, it’s “socialist” because we are a society, and though we can be highly individualistic we realize that sometimes, we’re in the same boat together and we have to band together to solve our problems.

You can keep doing your Glenn Beck impersonation, but Obama got elected promising health care reform and he delivered. What he delivered was a plan that had previously been a favorite of conservatives, including Heritage. As a sign of the right’s increased radicalism, the prospect of Obama delivering on his promises to America was not frightening because they feared a Communist state, but because they feared Democratic success. Democrats try to accomplish their goals using Republican proposals, and they don’t get bipartisan agreement, they get Foxbots like you running further to the right.

And I must note the hilarity of Hitchcock talking about rejecting the Constitution. Did I miss some kind of response to the Fourteenth Amendment issue with the debt ceiling? Nope.

If you guys play poker, then you know what a tell is. This is good news, as it means we may be able to prevent the radicalized misinformed delusional right from torching the US economy, and we’ll do it by pointing to that document they talk so much about but disregard so quickly, the Constitution. The more I see you guys running from the question posed several days ago, the more I sense Obama and the Democrats have found a way to save the country from you.

It is interesting that Wheeler would accuse me of “saying racist stuff” in one of his two moderated comments (and no, I don’t even release moderated comments from sane people like Hube) but I have yet to produce anything racist except when I’m mocking the racist Left (and that was like one entire comment a single time). None of my direct comments or articles have been even remotely racist. But the radical Left, such as Wheeler, will accuse Conservatives of being racist if Conservatives demand proof of eligibility to vote! American history, past and present, show it is the Left that is racist and not the Right. And that is a fact that cannot be denied by anyone who values Truth.

And their very big role is exactly what, Eric? Please respond with documentation.

Which of course, given your history, you will promptly ignore, dismiss, or reject.

I didn’t really expect documentation, as Eric just does not have the time in his extremely busy schedule. Therefore, whatever he makes up we on here should deem as credible. You were not paying attention when you were at South Lakes HS, Eric!

How about allowing bigamy? Polygamy? Islam allows a man up to four wives, should we allow this in the name of religious freedom?

Yes, how about allowing polygamy for consenting adults, Eric? What is wrong with that? Are your values somehow sacrosanct, therefore must be forced on the rest of us? This is the absolutist dictator in you showing itself again!

[Added: I personally am against polygamy, but do now wish to impose my values onto those who so consent.]

And their very big role is exactly what, Eric? Please respond with documentation.

Which of course, given your history, you will promptly ignore, dismiss, or reject.

Lame excuse to avoid documentation. Could it possibly be that you are too lazy. Your too busy excuse, in the age of Google, just does not fly. Moreover, I am the most responsive person on CSPT to your wingnutty posts.

Social Security and Medicare, which is what we are talking about, are hardly “welfare schemes”. Both are government run insurance policies to which all pay premiums for their entire lives. I continue to pay premiums for both, out of my part time job earnings and my pensions.

Yet, haven’t you advocated, several times, means-testing Social Security retirement benefits, which would turn Social Security into a welfare program?

The difference between a tax and what ObaminableCare is, is the reason it’s in serious trouble in the courts. The Constitution clearly gives the federal government the power to impose a tax, and the Constitution clearly gives the federal government the power to spend money through the appropriations process. In that regard, though a single-payer scheme is anathema to all sensible people, it would almost certainly face no (serious) challenges based on its constitutionality. Medicare, for example, is a single-payer plan, supported by taxes imposed on everyone who works, and its constitutionality is not in question.

But ObaminableCare is different. It requires individuals to purchase, from private vendors, something which they may not wish to purchase; that is not a tax. Then, the penalty for failing to prove you have purchased this from a private vendors is not a fine imposed by a court of law, in which the state must prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but a penalty imposed by the Infernal Revenue Service because you have failed to prove yourself as having complied with the law.

I have often wondered if ObaminableCare was the agreed upon compromise, with our friends on the left knowing it would probably be declared unconstitutional, in the hope that, once it became federal policy that the government was ultimately responsible for paying for everybody’s health care, single-payer would be the only remaining option.

That’s exactly what’s wrong with you collectivists and left wingers. The incredible arrogance. Obamacare is good for you because WE say so, and if you don’t like it (as tens of millions of Americans don’t) then we’re just going to shove it down your throats anyway.

Yup! That’s exactly their mentality, though it’s somewhat tempered by the notion that, after we’ve been forced to accept it long enough, we’ll come to like it.

Individual liberty and individual responsibility are simply unacceptable concepts to our friends on the left.

It is interesting that Wheeler would accuse me of “saying racist stuff” in one of his two moderated comments (and no, I don’t even release moderated comments from sane people like Hube) but I have yet to produce anything racist

Hitchcock, I was quite clear about what you said that I thought was racist. NUH-UH is not really a defense, it’s the noise of a guy who thinks asserting a conclusion is proof if he’s the one making the assertion.

But I think we have long established that you just talk the talk about Truth and Logic. You’re not interested in walking the walk.

Obamacare is good for you because WE say so, and if you don’t like it (as tens of millions of Americans don’t) then we’re just going to shove it down your throats anyway.

Hey, Foxbot, remember 2008 when Obama ran on and won the election promising national health care reform? Man, you are so trapped in your bubble.

And then, when you tried, the American people reached out in the 2010 elections and bitch-slapped you for it!

“Collectivist” describes the good ole’ USA in many respects, but not in all. We’re collectivist about defense, because privatizing our armies wouldn’t work. We’re collectivist about prisons, because for-profit prisons would perpetually seek ways to get more Americans in prison. We’re collectivist about schools, because the general welfare is improved by having as many people as possible educated. We’re collectivist when it comes to roads, because roads built strictly for profit wouldn’t reach many Americans. We’re collectivist when it snows too much and the county workers need to clear those obscure roads for us.

And we’re becoming increasingly collectivist about our health, because all your FREEDOM shyster rhetoric, which is really about putting as much loot as possible in corporate hands and not healing people, means millions sick, dying and dead because privatizing health is expensive and ineffective at reaching all Americans.

Do I really need to search Iowa Liberal archives to find complaints (more from Mr Ganzeveld than you) that ObaminableCare is “putting as much loot as possible in corporate hands,” and that the insurance companies love it because it guarantees them more total customers?

Let me be clear about this: if someone is unwilling to take responsibility for paying for his health insurance himself, I believe that is his absolute right. I also believe that if he gets sick and has taken such a choice, he should be allowed to suffer the consequences of his decision.

It’s really amazing the change in liberal thinking since the 1970s. One of the big issues on campus at the University of Kentucky in the early seventies was the status of the university in loco parentis, with students claiming that they were adults, who no longer require parental supervision.

Now, some of those same students, in their fifties and sixties now, are saying that the United States government must be in loco parentis to all of those poor or irresponsible people out there who cannot or have chosen not to buy health insurance.

How about allowing bigamy? Polygamy? Islam allows a man up to four wives, should we allow this in the name of religious freedom?

Yes, how about allowing polygamy for consenting adults, Eric? What is wrong with that? Are your values somehow sacrosanct, therefore must be forced on the rest of us? This is the absolutist dictator in you showing itself again!

[Added: I personally am against polygamy, but do now wish to impose my values onto those who so consent.]

But that’s just it, Perry: we don’t criminalize polygamous unions from living together and claiming to be married; we simply do not have the state recognize such a union as a marriage, and do penalize those who attempt to legally marry in such unions. Similarly, if a same-sex couple wishes to shack up, that’s their business; it is not a criminal act, nor should it be a criminal act, but it should also not be something that the state recognizes as a legal marriage.

The push for legal same-sex “marriage” is claimed to be one for equal rights, but if that was the goal, then the various civil unions statutes across the nation would have been sufficient. They were not sufficient, because the homosexual activists insisted on the word marriage for one, and only one, reason: to put the state as officially recognizing their lifestyles as being just as good as and just as legitimate as heterosexual marriages. It was an attempt to claim that they are just as normal as anyone else.

Well, they seem to be getting their way, slowly, but that doesn’t make them normal.

Dana: So the lesson is, don’t fulfill your campaign promises? Is that why Republicans came in and went after Planned Parenthood, NPR and labor unions before unleashing their grand plan to hold the economy hostage over the debt ceiling after lecturing us about uncertainty in 2010?

What happened with the health care reform bill? Well, a couple things.

a) Almost none of it has taken effect, most of it going into effect in 2014.
b) Republicans took a Republican health care reform bill and turned it into The Great Socialist Takeover of Health Care. The frequently repeated mantra that it was a government takeover of health care was named Politifact’s lie of the year for its sheer dishonesty.
c) Underscoring Republican dishonesty, Americans said they didn’t like reform but when asked about each of the facets of it, they liked each and every one except the individual mandate. Republicans, of course, highlighted that and ignored everything else.
d) Disillusioned Democrats bitter over the surrender on the public option weren’t exactly jumping up and down with enthusiasm for the bill, which is so heavily compromised that while it can and will provide near universal coverage, it will do so by showering money on healthcare insurance companies.

You know, the reason it was originally a Republican health care plan. Still, as sour as that part is, the important thing is that people will get coverage.

Dana, the Republicans have certainly excelled at being extremely enthusiastic in their opposition, but coherent or honest, not so much. After all, I think there isn’t much doubt that the positions of most here at CSPT, including yourself, on health care would mean the end of power for the Republicans if they were actually front and center. Privatized SS and Medicare, no government role in healthcare assistance at all, ala FREEDOM??? Please.

You are right about one thing though…Democrats should certainly be more willing to say “Medicare for all.” It’s simple, it sells well, and it ultimately means better care for less money, combined with the cost controls in the ACA that no Republican is allowed to acknowledge exist.

Someday we’re just going to have to aspire to more than 37th best health care in the world while spending twice as much per person.

Well, Henry, you can go ahead and play that race card all you want (not like you have anything legitimate to hang your hat on). In fact, I hope you do keep playing the race card. I hope all Leftists keep playing the race card. The quicker your Leftist agenda dies, because crying wolf so often will cause even the low-information voters to see the real truth. And that real truth is: You got nothing.

Just like your claims that I said something racist. You got nothing since there was nothing racist in what I said.

Basically, you don’t think people are qualified to make decisions for themselves. I’ve noticed a real arrogance in your posts, I can see why your attitude is basically “We’re from the government and WE know what’s best for you, so sit back, you peon, and and don’t raise any pesky questions while we make your life decisions for you.” In short, the attitude of you big government left wingers is paternalistic and patronizing. That’s why you left wingers always sound so smug and condescending. On the other hand, if you valued freedom instead, you would trust that people are capable of taking responsibility for their lives. You would want to have the government pose the minimum necessary burden on the citizenry, You would not indulge in class warfare and, overall, you would be a much nicer person.

Someday we’re just going to have to aspire to more than 37th best health care in the world while spending twice as much per person.

HW, please see the following. Part of the reason we were ranked 37th (if you are using the 2000 WHO report) was because of our expenditures. There are some other problems brought out in this article about the ranking used. I am not saying we don’t have issues with our healthcare system. Trotting out a flawed ranking, however, doesn’t help.

Basically, you don’t think people are qualified to make decisions for themselves. I’ve noticed a real arrogance in your posts, I can see why your attitude is basically “We’re from the government and WE know what’s best for you, so sit back, you peon, and and don’t raise any pesky questions while we make your life decisions for you.” In short, the attitude of you big government left wingers is paternalistic and patronizing. That’s why you left wingers always sound so smug and condescending. On the other hand, if you valued freedom instead, you would trust that people are capable of taking responsibility for their lives. You would want to have the government pose the minimum necessary burden on the citizenry, You would not indulge in class warfare and, overall, you would be a much nicer person.”

Eric, your remarks just more of your hot air, since they are not a response to Henry’s point, which you need to consider in the context in which he made his statement which you quoted. Here is Henry’s statement, as a reminder to you:

“And we’re becoming increasingly collectivist about our health, because all your FREEDOM shyster rhetoric, which is really about putting as much loot as possible in corporate hands and not healing people, means millions sick, dying and dead because privatizing health is expensive and ineffective at reaching all Americans.

It’s the people left behind that move Americans to seek ways to help. Yeah, it’s “socialist” because we are a society, and though we can be highly individualistic we realize that sometimes, we’re in the same boat together and we have to band together to solve our problems. “

Now try again, Eric, to respond to Henry’s actual context, that is, if you can!

“The flawed WHO report shouldn’t obscure that the U.S. is lagging its peers in some major barometers of public health. For instance, the U.S. slipped from 18th to 24th in male life expectancy from 2000 to 2009, according to the United Nations, and from 28th to 35th in female life expectancy. Its rankings in preventing male and female under-5 mortality also fell, and placed in the 30s.

But even such analyses, more limited in scope than the WHO’s effort, face similar problems: How to differentiate between the quality of the medical system and other factors, such as diet, exercise and violent-crime rates.

Some think that if the U.S. health-care system isn’t responsible for troubling outcomes, trying to fix it doesn’t provide the best return on investment.

“We might get more bang for the buck by setting aside some of our health-care money to support novel approaches to improve nutrition, education, exercise or public safety,” says Alan Garber, an economist and professor of medicine at Stanford University. “Not every health problem has a medical solution.”

The major factors which we are lacking in our health outcomes is daunting. The authors of our Affordable Care Act recognized this, as well as the flaws in the WHO report, which is why they wrote into the act measures that included the elements in the quoted comment by Alan Gerber of Stanford University which I emboldened. Few Americans have come to appreciate this.

Dr Musgrove’s closing comment means that we should just throw up our hands and do nothing. We’ve been doing nothing for far too long!

On the other hand, if you valued freedom instead, you would trust that people are capable of taking responsibility for their lives.

Our good friend Mr Whistler does believe that people are capable of taking responsibility for their lives . . . rigt up to the point at which some don’t. As an oh-so-sympathetic liberal, Mr Whistler would protect the people from the consequences of their failure to take such responsibility, but the only way to do that is to take that responsibility from them.

Our friends on the left value freedom and liberty, right up to the point where people have the freedom to fail. Then they go into full in loco parentis mode, telling us how we must all bail out those poor, unfortunate individuals who have not won life’s lottery.

“Our friends on the left value freedom and liberty, right up to the point where people have the freedom to fail. Then they go into full in loco parentis mode, telling us how we must all bail out those poor, unfortunate individuals who have not won life’s lottery.”

However, we Americans are not nearly as clever as the Germans, therefore our economy is not performing nearly as well in terms of employment, in terms of manufacturing, in term exports and trade balance, in terms of salaries which reward productivity justly at all levels, in terms of having strong labor unions, in terms of investments in infrastructure and innovation, and in terms of vacation standards for all Germans.

Now nobody actually going at the problem head on tracking the evidence would have arrived at the answer. But what benefit did blaming the CRA law have? Because it could be pinned on Carter and blacks. PERFECT! You have your Hitchcock Foxbot answer ready to go.

It seems to me, Hitchcock, that you’ve developed a rather heightened defensiveness to charges of racism, even moreso than the average Republican. So you keep squealing YOU ARE THE RACIST PLAYING THE RACE CARD when I’m just the one identifying your racist sentiment. I get it, turn the tables, best defense is a good offense, etc. But you’re not addressing the subject, let’s make no mistake about that.

I think you’re slapping the word “freedom” on a scheme to get the government to redirect SS contributions to Wall Street. I think you’ve become such a radicalized Foxbot teabagger that you’ve decided we’ve spent the last 75 years as a Communist nation, smearing a lot of Americans including those who fought for freedom in WWII. That’s the generation you’re smearing with this horses**t. I think your ideas would be so soundly rejected by the public that you have to say “freedom” as much as possible because if there’s anything Republicans are good at, it’s repeating buzzwords in the hope of drilling them into the public’s skull. In other words, I say you’re using shyster rhetoric because you’re either a con man or you’ve been conned, but you’re far too stubborn to play victim. You’re a facilitator, so yes, you’re the shyster talking car salesman shtick to get people to vote against their retirement security.

Basically, you don’t think people are qualified to make decisions for themselves.

Again, the country already saw what was happening to the elderly and decided to do something to fix it. I don’t think such people are stupid at all. I think most of them worked hard all their lives and deserve some dang respect at the end of it for everything they’ve done, whether or not they built up a large savings account. I think a lot of people are quite brilliant who don’t necessarily have the means or inclination to provide for their retirement, and that throughout history this was generally alleviated by extended families. To me, ending up old and not as able to fend for one’s self is simply a common predicament among people that I don’t judge one way or the other. It simply is.

What I don’t do is reinvent human nature to assume everybody is some savvy investor who has enough disposable income and discipline to amass a fortune. And what I don’t do is try to cast those people on the rocks of fate and then tell anybody who disagrees that they’re calling the people stupid if they hit the rocks. I’m not calling them stupid. I’m calling you a greedy bast**rd.

Not to mention that you seem perfectly willing to suggest that the good people actually could assemble fine retirements for themselves, except SS payments actually prevent them from doing so. If you were actually willing to think things over, Eric, you’d realize that everybody fiscally disciplined enough to do so will build an investment nest egg for themselves anyway. SS payments absolutely do not prevent anybody from doing so. C’mon, Eric, what are you saying, people will blow their incomes on televisions, cable, video games, etc. instead of putting that money into an investment account? ARE YOU CALLING THEM STUPID?

I’ve noticed a real arrogance in your posts,

I’m sure you feel that way a lot when you lose arguments and spout lots of ill-formed babble instead of trying to adapt and learn. If you don’t get coddled for being wrong, call the other person arrogant! Father Limbaugh will tell you you’re smart for believing dumb things, Eric. Not me.

I can see why your attitude is basically “We’re from the government and WE know what’s best for you,

We ARE the government, Eric. It’s a democracy. We can vote for social safety net programs for ourselves because we want to be a better society that doesn’t cast away the less fortunate, we can oversee them, we can pressure for change, and so on. This is the classic rightwinger mistake of treating the government like a dictatorship that hands edicts down on the poor oppressed masses just because it does something you didn’t vote for.

Not to mention that you obviously think you know what’s best for people, and that best is, ‘Enjoy the freedom, you’ll do just fine (if you put your money in Wall Street)!’

But, you’ve got it in your head that if liberals were actually nice, they’d forget about the less fortunate and tend to the bruised egos of Republican hacks like yourself. Congratulations, Eric, you’ve assembled a perfect circle of self-serving tripe.

Our good friend Mr Whistler does believe that people are capable of taking responsibility for their lives . . . rigt up to the point at which some don’t. As an oh-so-sympathetic liberal, Mr Whistler would protect the people from the consequences of their failure to take such responsibility, but the only way to do that is to take that responsibility from them.

Most of what I just said to Eric applies the same, but it’s telling that you also must speak in vague generalized ideological babble rather than address the realities of the world. You want no safety nets and to tell people “Tough cookies,” if they fail, and you think that will generate the ideal society. If we do anything to help them, we’re actually stealing responsibility!
People must eat their responsibility, and if it is an empty plate, then that is what they must eat.

That’s great, but this democracy decided over three quarters of a century ago that we didn’t like seeing the previous generations wasting away in poverty, and that we were, much to your distaste, not the kind of society that favored that.

Now maybe someday you’ll succeed and a critical mass will emerge that says screw it, everybody for themselves. No society, no common good, no general welfare, just individuals fighting for primacy on an island. The poor will deserve it, judged as likely to be successful if they had just been more like Dana Pico.

But in the meantime, yes, those SS payments are going to come out of your paycheck instead of going into your personal savings fund, and you’ll just have to deal with the horrible tyranny.

Maybe, however, consider this: if you feel like you’re being swaddled by Mommy and having choices taken away by mean old Daddy, maybe it’s because you’re acting like a whiny teenager who sees that chunk going out of his paycheck without understanding or respecting why? Maybe the responsibility you think is being taken from you is actually responsibility for society you don’t want to accept, but a responsibility wiser and more humane people realize exists, and voted to ratify?

“Collectivist” describes the good ole’ USA in many respects, but not in all. We’re collectivist about defense, because privatizing our armies wouldn’t work. We’re collectivist about prisons, because for-profit prisons would perpetually seek ways to get more Americans in prison. We’re collectivist about schools, because the general welfare is improved by having as many people as possible educated. We’re collectivist when it comes to roads, because roads built strictly for profit wouldn’t reach many Americans. We’re collectivist when it snows too much and the county workers need to clear those obscure roads for us.

The difference is, these were all legitimate functions of limited government as defined by our Founders. In contrast, there is NO evidence that they envisioned the kind of welfare state, entitlement society that you left wingers want. Indeed, when it was first tried under FDR, the Supreme court rejected much of it as unconstitutional, and he had to resort to thuggish tactics, acting almost like a dictator in fact, by threatening to pack the court to get his way.

And so the precedent was set. The government was basically allowed to force you to comply with its dictates, whether you wanted to or not, whether they fit the kind of constitutional limited government as envisioned by the Founders or not. Our taxes are ridiculously high by the historical standards of this nation. You may claim this is all in the name of “Kompassion”. But that, quite simply, is a lie. It’s really all about power and control.

Now maybe someday you’ll succeed and a critical mass will emerge that says screw it, everybody for themselves. No society, no common good, no general welfare, just individuals fighting for primacy on an island.

So you’re saying people can’t handle freedom, that the constitutional republic we had for the first 175 years or so was just a myth, and that, in reality, people, if actually given freedom, will act like characters in a Mad Max movie. That decency and charity would simply not exist.

What a shitty view of humanity you have! No wonder you think the government has to coerce into all behaving well!

I’m sure you feel that way a lot when you lose arguments and spout lots of ill-formed babble instead of trying to adapt and learn.

Why don’t YOU adapt and learn? The difference between you and me is I don’t want to make you do anything. I want you to be free. You’re the one who thinks he knows what’s best for everyone, hence my use of the term “Arrogant”.

Dr Musgrove’s closing comment means that we should just throw up our hands and do nothing. We’ve been doing nothing for far too long!

Why not open up the health care system to TRUE free market competition? Allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, just like you can with car insurance. Remove the mandates on coverage so people could buy exactly the kind of insurance they need and want. Encourage more competition among health providers. When you go to the doctor’s office, you you even know how much the procedure is gonna cost? Generally speaking, no, and that’s in part because someone else is paying for it.

At the very least we ought to try all these things FIRST before getting sucked into a government scheme like ObamaCare.

“In contrast, there is NO evidence that they envisioned the kind of welfare state, entitlement society that you left wingers want.”

Ever hear of corporate welfare, like subsidies to oil companies and big agriculture conglomerates, Eric? Of course you have, but you want to ignore these and come down on such as unemployment compensation and head start, because that is what Rush says. And you want to do away with the social security safety net and medicare as we know it, and instead funnel more of our nation’s wealth to the already wealthy, then tell me I have class envy for objecting to these right wing talking points. Where are your Christian principles, Eric? They appear to be entirely absent, if you ask me!

Ever hear of corporate welfare, like subsidies to oil companies and big agriculture conglomerates, Eric? Of course you have, but you want to ignore these and come down on such as unemployment compensation and head start, because that is what Rush says.

Have you ever read anything from Eric saying or even suggesting that he supports such things?

Ever hear of corporate welfare, like subsidies to oil companies and big agriculture conglomerates, Eric? Of course you have, but you want to ignore these and come down on such as unemployment compensation and head start, because that is what Rush says.

Have you ever read anything from Eric saying or even suggesting that he supports such things?

No I haven’t Dana. Did I make a mistake in thinking that Eric has a baseline knowledge of these things? Moreover, are you being defensive of some of his outrageous statements on here?

Dr Musgrove’s closing comment means that we should just throw up our hands and do nothing. We’ve been doing nothing for far too long!

Why not open up the health care system to TRUE free market competition? Allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, just like you can with car insurance. Remove the mandates on coverage so people could buy exactly the kind of insurance they need and want. Encourage more competition among health providers. When you go to the doctor’s office, you you even know how much the procedure is gonna cost? Generally speaking, no, and that’s in part because someone else is paying for it.

At the very least we ought to try all these things FIRST before getting sucked into a government scheme like ObamaCare.

The Affordable Care Act has provisions for having competition across state lines with the exchange mechanism which will become operative.

On the mandates, they require everyone to have “minimum essential coverage”, the definition of which is right here. As far as I can tell, minimum essential coverage is something like the requirement in the Swiss Healthcare System, so it is not breaking new ground in that sense.

Since these mandates are minimal, folks are free to upgrade their insurance however they, or their employers, wish, again similar to the Swiss.

So those items you mention that you want to see tried are already contained in the Affordable Care Act.

No, Whistler, telling the truth about CRA is absolutely not raaaaacist. But raaaaacists like the Justice Brothers and the radical Left part of the Democrat Party used CRA for their race-baiting agenda.

There is nothing racist about telling the truth that CRA caused the mortgage bubble that burst. For you to throw the accusation that telling the truth about CRA is racist is for you to illegitimately attempt to subvert the truth and hide from the poisonous facts that is the CRA.

I’ve documented many, many times before that the whole “Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to give subprime loans to minorities who couldn’t pay” theory was total and complete baloney. Loans given under the CRA were to minorities that were in better average financial shape than the average subprime borrower. If anything, minorities who had better credit than the average subprime borrower were forced by greedy banks into subprime loans, even though they should have qualified for better mortgage rates. In fact, the vast majority of mortgage lenders that went under in the subprime housing disaster were not banks large enough to be covered by the CRA at all, so they made zero CRA loans and still collapsed. In fact, banks went out of their way to foreclose on minorities who had good credit and fell victim to bad loans pushed by the banks.

No, Whistler, telling the truth about CRA is absolutely not raaaaacist. But raaaaacists like the Justice Brothers and the radical Left part of the Democrat Party used CRA for their race-baiting agenda.

There is nothing racist about telling the truth that CRA caused the mortgage bubble that burst. For you to throw the accusation that telling the truth about CRA is racist is for you to illegitimately attempt to subvert the truth and hide from the poisonous facts that is the CRA.

John, it’s like the Court Room scene in “A FEW GOOD MEN” When Jack Nicholson said to Tom Cruise – “You can’t handle the truth”. If you tell them how the CRA caused the bubble to burst, you would just be called a liar, a bigot, and a racist. They don’t understand because they choose to.

I spent a year of my life researching and writing in painstaking details what the actual causes of the crisis were. I put together all of the moving parts as to what the actual causes were — and wrote them up in Bailout Nation, to wit: Irresponsibly ultra-low rates that led to a huge housing boom; a failure by the Fed to supervise non-bank lenders; An abdication of lending standards by both banks and non-banks; Radical deregulation of financial markets; the now discredited belief that markets can self-regulate; a shadow derivative market allowed to operate unlike every other financial product; Compensation schemes that rewarded short term risk taking over long term profitibility; Increases in leverage to the major investment houses from 12-to-1 to 35-to-1; These were the causes of the collapse — not some 1977 legislation.

Its not simply that the overwhelming amount of evidence points to many factors outside of the CRA, the actual results of CRA were minor. Relative to these other ginormous factors, the CRA impact is all but irrelevant. And to date, nobody has produced any data based evidence that the CRA was relevant to the crisis. Not one shred.

Until that evidence is produced, the CRA remains a marker, one that separates proponents of intellectually honest debate versus the parrots of partisan talking points, not worthy of your time or effort.

PTD:
I spent a year of my life researching and writing in painstaking details what the actual causes of the crisis were. I put together all of the moving parts as to what the actual causes were — and wrote them up in Bailout Nation, to wit: Irresponsibly ultra-low rates that led to a huge housing boom; a failure by the Fed to supervise non-bank lenders; An abdication of lending standards by both banks and non-banks; Radical deregulation of financial markets; the now discredited belief that markets can self-regulate; a shadow derivative market allowed to operate unlike every other financial product; Compensation schemes that rewarded short term risk taking over long term profitibility; Increases in leverage to the major investment houses from 12-to-1 to 35-to-1; These were the causes of the collapse — not some 1977 legislation.

So this whole description of yours is the slide show. Where’s Mark Halperin when you need him.

Yes, how about allowing polygamy for consenting adults, Eric? What is wrong with that?

From the perspective of pure libertarian theory, nothing. Just as there’s nothing wrong with marrying your dog. But, as a practical matter, marriage has to mean something. And for thousands of years in our culture, it has meant one man and one woman. You can call gay marriage “Marriage” just as you can put a dress on a chimp and call it a beauty queen, but in reality all you have is a monkey in drag. And that’s basically what gay marriage is – a fake version of the real thing.

Eric: And here we are, you blowing off my best efforts to explain and repeating yourself. Heard you the first time. So nothing else then?

I’m not quite sure what your point is, but mine is quite clear. Government should be as big as is absolutely necessary and no bigger. Is welfare necessary? Social Security? No. What is necessary, at the federal level, are defense, the treasury, law enforcement and courts, and not a whole lot else.

Besides, most of the stuff we want from government is at the local or state level – schools, roads, fire, police, etc. And those entities are perfectly capable of handling those functions without bleeding us dry through taxes. So why then are the Feds sucking up most of our tax dollars? Damned if I know.

On the mandates, they require everyone to have “minimum essential coverage”, the definition of which is right here.

While I appreciate you looking that up, the actual text was a bunch of gobbledygook, meaning nothing. What I meant is that insurance companies should be allowed to offer, and people allowed to buy, exactly the kind of insurance they need, not that dictated by the government. If you don’t need coverage for chemical dependency treatment or Viagra, why should you have to pay for it?

Also, I noticed this at that site. As best I can tell, it shows numbers of who likes ObamaCare and who opposes it

Eric, your remarks just more of your hot air, since they are not a response to Henry’s point, which you need to consider in the context in which he made his statement which you quoted. Here is Henry’s statement, as a reminder to you:

Well, you notice he first tries to “Win” the argument by calling me a shyster. But, that aside, my larger point was to respond to his attitude. I may be wrong, but he comes across as someone who very much likes the idea of bossing other people around. And ObamaCare is perfectly suited to such a personality. You get to ORDER people to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, and then you get to DICTATE what sort of coverage the insurance companies can offer. Why can’t he and his ilk just leave us alone? Why do we get the patronizing “We’re from the government, and we know what’s best for you”? Is that the kind of “Ideal” our Founders fought for?

I may be wrong, but he comes across as someone who very much likes the idea of bossing other people around.

Shoulda stuck with the first four words. Has it occurred to you to actually read people’s stories about their encounters with the American medical insurance system – such as clerks reading from policy manuals making decisions on whether medical procedures are “necessary” or not?

Eric: “Government should be as big as is absolutely necessary and no bigger.”

That’s nice you think so! So what? It should…why? Even if it means millions of Americans cannot get health insurance? What is the gain vs. the sacrifice of your “should”? It’s nice that you have a “should,” but everybody has a “should” about things. I could just as easily read that, “A society should not seek to improve the health of its members.” For what reason should it not? I can think of a good reason to do so…millions of innocent lives. Why not? Because you want a few bucks back on your tax returns? Hmmm, lemme do the calculus there…I would get some money back too, but then I might be left high and dry one day through no fault of my own and be unable to retire. Not seeing the advantage of those few extra bucks, nor how I’d turn those into the force that would save my life.

Like I said before, if one were wise and smart enough to invest those SS deductions on one’s own, the same person would be wise and smart enough to invest money anyway. You’ve yet to respond to that point.

Should it be such a surprise that people see more value in tending to the general welfare, and believe it’s worth a paycheck deduction? Should it be so shocking that people view health care as something “absolutely necessary?”

“Well, you notice he first tries to “Win” the argument by calling me a shyster.”

Of course that’s not how I tried to win the argument. I’ve been winning the argument by demonstrating you to be either a shyster or a fool or both, via better facts and better reason. Calling you names by itself proves nothing:)

“But, that aside, my larger point was to respond to his attitude.”

As, apparently, responding to my logic isn’t as appealing a prospect to you.

“I may be wrong, but he comes across as someone who very much likes the idea of bossing other people around.”

You are wrong. I really, really dislike bossing people around. But I like when a society votes to take care of its less fortunate.

“Why can’t he and his ilk just leave us alone?”

Because some of “us” can’t get medical care. Health is a universal public need, like security, safety, roads, mail, etc. The government is necessary to make sure it isn’t merely the province of the wealthy, just like we don’t decide that people with bad jobs don’t deserve police protection, or roads, or mail service, etc.

““We’re from the government, and we know what’s best for you”?”

Obviously points that make you uncomfortable simply go ignored, which is why arguing with stubborn willfully ignorant types such as yourself can be so upsetting for you. Again, in this democratic republic, we are the government, and we can vote to promote the general welfare without turning the country into Stalinist Russia, despite your simple-minded exhortations.

Ah, screw it, you’re going to blow off all this again and recite more talking point soundbites, perhaps mixed with more whining. Over and over and over, you just keep trying to tell me that it’s really about me wanting CONTROL!!! Like I give a damn about that at all. I want a health care system that actually works for all Americans that won’t drive us into bankruptcy. How can we do it? The private system we’ve had for several decades has bankrupted us and left tens of millions behind. A more public system does it better in country after country. I opt for the practical choice, the method that actually fulfills our needs.

Yorkshire: I post a link that actually explains how little a role CRA had, and you post a cartoon that doesn’t mention the CRA as far as I saw, but actually reaffirmed most of what my link said.

Can you guys bother to satisfy the most basic standards of evidence and rebuttal?

Or is it just too damn much to resist a law passed under a Democratic president that you can pin the blame for our economic collapse on minorities? I understand it’s Foxbot catnip, but c’mon, there are actual facts and numbers to look at here!

I’m not quite sure what your point is, but mine is quite clear. Government should be as big as is absolutely necessary and no bigger. Is welfare necessary? Social Security? No. What is necessary, at the federal level, are defense, the treasury, law enforcement and courts, and not a whole lot else.

Besides, most of the stuff we want from government is at the local or state level – schools, roads, fire, police, etc. And those entities are perfectly capable of handling those functions without bleeding us dry through taxes. So why then are the Feds sucking up most of our tax dollars? Damned if I know.

One of the big problems is that the federal government soaks up so much in taxes that the states and localities don’t have the room in the economy to tax more. And what we’ve wound up with is a system in which the states have to wait for federal largesse to rain down upon them to pay for state functions.

The federal gasoline excise tax is 18.4¢ per gallon. Under federal law, 92% of the tax must be spent in the state in which it was collected. Wouldn’t it be simpler and more practical, then, for the feds to drop the 18.4¢ rate to 1.5¢ per gallon, which could be spent anywhere the feds decided, without restriction, and let the states collect the 16.9¢ per gallon directly, and spend it as they see fit? You would eliminate a lot of state paperwork, plus the additional federal handling, of the money returned to the states, and maybe, just maybe, use more of that money to fill potholes than printers.

That’s just the most obvious example I have, with real numbers, but it’s a small portion of what is actually done in taxing away money by the feds, and then having Washington send it back to the states for state and local governments to spend. If you go to this .pdf file, you will see federal money sent right back to the states for elementary and secondary education was $46,246,133,000 in FY2010 (including a $10 billion porkulus plan bump), $35,326,212,986 (estimated) for FY2011 and $34,625,087,000 (projected) for FY2012. Now, you can look at all of the various programs listed (21st Century Community Learning Centers or Improving Teacher Quality State Grants or Career and Technical Education State Grants), and say, “You know, this sounds, at least from the title, like a good idea,” but, if so, why does the money have to go to the feds first, get strings attached to it, along with thousands of pieces of paper, and then sent back to the states?

The reason, of course, is obvious. It is because people with oh-so-good ideas only have to lobby one government, the feds, to get their ideas put in place, and then mandated by Congress. If the feds weren’t involved, and taxes were cut by the $35 billion in federal aid, so that the states would have room to raise taxes that much — if they so chose — then whoever got the idea to create the Rural and Low-income Schools Program would have to lobby fifty separate state governments to get his idea through, and some of them might have different priorities, some of them might choose not to spend money there.

And, of course, there’s the dirty little secret problem. Most of the states have balanced budget requirements in their constitutions. With total federal spending for FY2011 projected to be $3.708 trillion, total federal revenues projected to be $2.228 trillion, and a federal deficit of $1.480 trillion, 39.9% of all federal outlays are borrowed money. If we assume that means that 39.9% of the estimated $35,326,212,986 to be spent in federal aid to state education is borrowed money, that means that $14.10 billion of that is actual deficit spending on the part of the states, even the ones with balanced budget requirements. The states meet their balanced budget requirements by transferring their education spending deficits to the federal government!

Henry, you are a wise man! I agree with your piece, and here is a part of it which those like Eric need to consider instead of responding with the automatic responses which come from their talking heads:

“You are wrong. I really, really dislike bossing people around. But I like when a society votes to take care of its less fortunate.

“Why can’t he and his ilk just leave us alone?”

Because some of “us” can’t get medical care. Health is a universal public need, like security, safety, roads, mail, etc. The government is necessary to make sure it isn’t merely the province of the wealthy, just like we don’t decide that people with bad jobs don’t deserve police protection, or roads, or mail service, etc.”

It’s time for Eric to do some internalization and critical thinking on the propler role of government vis a vis the needs of the citizens.

“One of the big problems is that the federal government soaks up so much in taxes that the states and localities don’t have the room in the economy to tax more. And what we’ve wound up with is a system in which the states have to wait for federal largesse to rain down upon them to pay for state functions.”

The problem with your suggestion is simple: The rich states would get richer, the poor states poorer.

Economic factors out of the control of certain states, attributable to both global competition and laissez faire federal policies, have put these states at a severe economic disadvantage which then requires special attention from the federal government.

The federal tax on gasoline, for example, enables the feds to assure the upkeep of roads and bridges in these troubled states. That is a good thing!

Economic factors out of the control of certain states, attributable to both global competition and laissez faire federal policies, have put these states at a severe economic disadvantage which then requires special attention from the federal government.

Those states tend to vote red. Why not just let them collapse?

Come to think of it, the next time w1ngnuts talk about seceding, why not *encourage* them?

Create state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges, administered by a governmental agency or non-profit organization, through which individuals and small businesses with up to 100 employees can purchase qualified coverage. Permit states to allow businesses with more than 100 employees to purchase coverage in the SHOP Exchange
beginning in 2017. States may form regional Exchanges or allow more than one Exchange to operate in a state as long as each Exchange serves a distinct geographic area. (Funding available to states to establish Exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015)

Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange. At least one plan must be offered by a non-profit entity and at least one plan must not provide coverage for abortions beyond those permitted by federal law. Each multi-state plan must be licensed in each state and must meet the qualifications of a qualified health plan. If a state has lower age
rating requirements than 3:1, the state may require multi-state plans to meet the more protective age rating rules. These multi-state plans will be offered separately from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program and will have a separate risk pool.

You can see these passages for yourself if you scroll down in the cite about one third, to “Health Insurance Exchanges” section.

Regarding your accusation about Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, private insurance is absolutely still in the game, much to my own consternation. Why give some of our health care expenditures to inefficient and unscrupulous private insurers? The public option would have been better, single payer better yet, in my opinion. On this the Dems compromised with the Repubs, so we live with it for now!

Dude, the Kaiser Family Foundation, while now separated from, was an outgrowth of Kaiser Permanente, a managed health care consortium. Quoting people who make their money off health care as your sources automatically calls them into question.

Are you sure of that? Judging by the rhetoric from Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, the “Affordable” Care Act [chuckle, snort] is designed mainly to drive private insurance out of business.

Not on it’s face, no. I do question how future regulatory changes will impact insurance company profitability, because I just plain don’t trust the Democrats. (If Nancy Pelosi told me that 2 + 2 = 4, I’d check the math.)

The real problem will come when the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional, something I’d say has a decent chance of happening. If the Supreme Court doesn’t hold that the lack of a severability clause makes the whole rotten thing unconstitutional, then the act would drive all of the private insurance companies broke: since, under ObaminableCare, private insurance companies cannot deny acceptance due to pre-existing conditions, people could just wait until they got sick, and then buy insurance. (If insurance companies are allowed to jack up the prices for those with such pre-existing conditions, they could survive.)

This repugnant health care “reform” was never really designed to succeed. Rather, the Democrats agreed to some compromises that they knew wouldn’t work, to get the last few conservative Democrats to go along with it, to simply establish the precedent that the federal government is ultimately responsible for paying for everybody’s health care. Then, when this abomination fails, the only remaining option will be single-payer; a return to the system as it was in 2008 won’t be an option.

That’s one reason it is absolutely vital to defeat President Obama in next year’s elections, and return the Senate to Republican control. Much of ObaminableCare doesn’t take effect until 2014, after the next Congress is seated, so we can simply undo the whole damned thing. If President Obama is re-elected, even if the Republicans control one of both Houses of Congress, no repeal legislation can be passed that won’t be vetoed. Then, the Republicans will have only the option of not funding those parts of ObaminableCare that require additional funding, in which case the system will collapse anyway.

“Dude, the Kaiser Family Foundation, while now separated from, was an outgrowth of Kaiser Permanente, a managed health care consortium. Quoting people who make their money off health care as your sources automatically calls them into question.”

I guess I’m “Dude” now. Have you been drinking, Dana?

Anyway, I quoted from a summary of the Affordable Care Act. Do you have documentable reason to claim it to be inaccurate?

The problem with your suggestion is simple: The rich states would get richer, the poor states poorer.

So? Then the poorer states had better learn to get more productive.

The federal tax on gasoline, for example, enables the feds to assure the upkeep of roads and bridges in these troubled states. That is a good thing!

Didn’t you read the comment to which you have responded? Federal law requires that at least 92% of all of that tax be spent in the state in which it was collected. Only 8% (1.5¢ per gallon) is not so limited. Why wouldn’t it be more sensible for the federal tax to be only that 1.5¢ per gallon, and maybe then your argument would be valid.

In my quarter-century in the ready-mixed concrete industry, I have been on jobs (plural) with federal, state and local money all involved, and each jurisdiction, federal, state and local, would have their own offices and, in one case, own inspectors, on the site.

Shoulda stuck with the first four words. Has it occurred to you to actually read people’s stories about their encounters with the American medical insurance system – such as clerks reading from policy manuals making decisions on whether medical procedures are “necessary” or not?

Because some of “us” can’t get medical care. Health is a universal public need, like security, safety, roads, mail, etc. The government is necessary to make sure it isn’t merely the province of the wealthy, just like we don’t decide that people with bad jobs don’t deserve police protection, or roads, or mail service, etc.

Food is a universal need, but we don’t give the government a monopoly on providing it. I’m guessing you missed my post where I gave several suggestions on how to reduce the cost of both health care and health insurance, and to provide better choices for both. You will note that most people already have health coverage and most of them are satisfied with it, which is one reason ObamaCare is so unpopular. If we give the government a monopoly on providing health care (and, yeah, I know ObamaCare doesn’t do that – yet), then we’re likely to be stuck with it. Forever. Gone will be any choice in how you get health coverage. And if you think it will reduce costs, think again. The only way the government will be able to reduce costs will be by rationing, which, considering the huge deficits we are running up, may become a very real option.

Bottom line: We are much better off finding real free market solutions to the health care issue. There are ways to bring down costs without rationing. There are ways to have more competition in both health care services and health care coverage. Unfortunately, there are some people who are so horrified at the idea that an insurance company will actually (shudder) make a profit that they’re willing to trash the whole system rather than allow that to happen.

Create state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges, administered by a governmental agency or non-profit organization, through which individuals and small businesses with up to 100 employees can purchase qualified coverage. Permit states to allow businesses with more than 100 employees to purchase coverage in the SHOP Exchange
beginning in 2017. States may form regional Exchanges or allow more than one Exchange to operate in a state as long as each Exchange serves a distinct geographic area. (Funding available to states to establish Exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015)

Perry, this is pure bureaucratic gobbledygook. Could you please take the above and translate it into clear English? Thanks.

That’s nice you think so! So what? It should…why? Even if it means millions of Americans cannot get health insurance?

Yeah, but since when is this the government’s job? Who says they can’t get it? How many just don’t want to?

What is the gain vs. the sacrifice of your “should”? It’s nice that you have a “should,” but everybody has a “should” about things. I could just as easily read that, “A society should not seek to improve the health of its members.” For what reason should it not? I can think of a good reason to do so…millions of innocent lives. Why not? Because you want a few bucks back on your tax returns?

More like a few thousand. But, that aside, I believe in promoting freedom of choice. And a government monopoly on health coverage is the exact opposite. The problem with the current system is it isn’t truly a free market system at all but rather a mix of the market and government run socialism, and much of the time it combines the worst aspects of both. Promote true competition in health care and watch the prices go down and the quality go up.

Basically, Eric, this is the description of the setting up of health insurance exchanges to enable competition across state lines, thus lowering premiums for both employees and employers. This program can be administrated either by government or private entities. This is only a summary, the details of which are in the Affordable Care Act itself.

Being that this is the Fourth of July, I thought the following might be appropriate.

About 175 Independence Days ago, Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw the potential dangers of ever-increasing centralized power. He described the effects of such soft despotism as follows:
“[A]fter taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”

“Food is a universal need, but we don’t give the government a monopoly on providing it.”

Much to the consternation of Progressives like myself, the government will not be providing health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, the private sector will. The difference is that the ACA will enhance competition among the privates, which should help to bring premiums down. The mandate will also help to bring premiums down, as well as the streamlining of health care record keeping and billing. So even without single payer, which is what I wanted, the ACA is a vast improvement over what we have now.

The difference is that the ACA will enhance competition among the privates, which should help to bring premiums down. The mandate will also help to bring premiums down, as well as the streamlining of health care record keeping and billing. So even without single payer, which is what I wanted, the ACA is a vast improvement over what we have now.

Will it bring down prices? I wouldn’t be too certain about that. Previously, you had competition between insurance companies for customers, but the customers could always choose not to buy. Now, the option not to buy has been removed. It’s illegal for the insurance companies to get together and just set prices, but now, knowing that everybody has to buy, and thus a reduced incentive to keep prices down, the insurance companies could raise them, and as long as all of the companies figured out what prices they wanted, and were willing to be happy with their current market share, prices could easily rise.

One of the first things you learn in MBA school is that price is usually a far greater contributor to profit than volume. You have to make very substantial increases in your market share for volume to start to outweigh price.

“I believe in promoting freedom of choice. And a government monopoly on health coverage is the exact opposite.”

First of all, ACA isn’t a government monopoly on health coverage. I’m sure this isn’t the first time you’ve been corrected on that, but since when did the facts stop you?

But even if the government did provide basic healthcare coverage for all, why would your statement make any more sense than, “I believe in promoting freedom of choice. And a government monopoly on building roads is the exact opposite.”

“I believe in promoting freedom of choice. And a government monopoly on police protection is the exact opposite.”

“I believe in promoting freedom of choice. And a government monopoly on nuclear arms is the exact opposite.”

So your statement makes little sense. What it boils down to is, again, what you think the government “should” do vs. what it “shouldn’t.” And whereas I looked for a “why,” I get more FREEDOM!!! Plus some blaming of people for not wanting health insurance, a very tiny group of people who likely will waltz into a hospital someday demanding treatment. For those who truly want to exist outside the system, I have long proposed an opt-out, but in a revealing tell, every Republican I’ve talked to has shied away from it or been outraged by the idea.

Pardon me for believing most of you are just full-of-sh*t partisans who hate it because Obama did it.